disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Wilson, Dayton Bar Assn. v.127 Ohio St.3d 10, 2010-Ohio-4937. Decided 10/14/2010.Case Summaries- 356Respondent issued a bad trust account check to a client, failed to act with reasonable diligence on twoother client matters, and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process. Relator‘s complaint was broughtagainst Respondent, Y. Nicole Wilson, even though the attorney registration number used is listed asbelonging to a ―Y. Nicole Camp.‖ The court found them to be the same person. Respondent failed tofile an answer, so relator moved for default, and the case was referred to a master commissioner whosefindings, conclusions, and recommendations the board adopted. Respondent‘s license was suspended onNovember 3, 2009 for failure to register for the 2009/2011 biennium. In Count 1, respondentinformed relator she would return a retainer to a grievant dissatisfied with a bankruptcy representation.The bank returned the $450 trust account check for insufficient funds. Respondent did not respond torelator‘s repeated requests for a meeting and failed to honor a request that she appear at a scheduledmeeting before the grievance committee. Board found that this conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a),1.15(d), 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). The Board concluded the record did not support relator‘sallegation of a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c). The court agreed. In Count 2, respondent agreed torepresent a husband and wife in a custody matter. Respondent did not respond to relator‘s attempts toobtain information about this grievance. Based on factual findings, the board concluded thatrespondent‘s failure to respond to relator‘s attempts to inquire violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.BarR. V(4)(G). The board, citing Sebree (2004), did not find a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 and 1.3,because there was no sworn or certified evidence to support these alleged violations. The courtagreed. In Count 3, the Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 8.1(b), and Gov.Bar R.V(4)(G). Respondent commenced a bankruptcy action for a husband and wife, but failed to stop animproper garnishment of the husband‘s paycheck. The clients sent documents to respondent at herrequest, but they were returned by the post office marked ―undeliverable.‖ The board found thatrelator‘s investigator tried to contact respondent two times. One attempt was returned as ―notdeliverable as addressed‖ and respondent did not respond to the second attempt. The court noted thatwhile alleged in the complaint, the affidavits submitted do not mention the specific attempts by relator tocommunicate; therefore the court rejected these findings. But, because the record contained clear andconvincing evidence that respondent has not responded to relator and has not filed an answer, the courtfound violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). The court also found the violationsof Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 and 1.3. In mitigation, the board found that respondent lacked a prior disciplinaryrecord. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). In aggravation, the Board found that respondent engaged inmultiple offenses, a pattern of misconduct, failed to cooperate, failed to make restitution, and failed toacknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), (g), and (i).Relator recommended disbarment. The board recommended an indefinite suspension. Citiations toTorian (2005) and Verbiski (1999). The court ordered respondent be indefinitely suspended from thepractice of law, and that her reinstatement be conditioned on restitution of $450 plus interest to the clientsin Count 1.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 8.1(b); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)Aggravation: (c), (d), (e), (g), (i)Mitigation: (a)Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension