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

Case Summaries- 36referring him to a chiropractor and telling the client the chiropractor‘s bill would be paid from settlementproceeds, he did not communicate with or return the file after the client asked for his file back whenrespondent advised the client that respondent‘s child had been hospitalized. Neither the client nor thechiropractor was able to locate respondent and the chiropractor has not been paid. As to Client 4, boardfound violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), 1.5(c)(2), 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h) for hismisconduct in representation of a client injured in an automobile accident. Respondent, without theclient‘s authority, represented in writing to the other driver‘s insurer that he was authorized to settle allclaims for $15,000. Respondent received a check from the insurer payable to the law firm and the clientfor $4,250. Respondent had earlier agreed not to negotiate the check until the client signed a release andall medical expenses were paid. Respondent forged the client‘s name on the check and deposited it intohis bank account, but told the client he had returned a $4,000 settlement check to the insurer because itwas too low. Respondent has not paid the client or the medical provider. As to Client 5, the boardfound violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h) for his misconduct when a client paid forhim to represent her with $400 in cash and a postdated check for $200 that respondent promised not tocash for two days, but cashed early which deleted the client‘s bank account. When the client spoke tohim, he denied cashing the check early, thereafter the client was unable to contact him and he neverfiles her divorce complaint. As to Client 6, board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 4.1, 8.4(c), and8.4(h) for his misconduct in making three separate withdrawals from the estate bank account of a minorfor whom he had been appointed guardian after the guardianship had ended. He withdrew $10,474,leaving $10.92 in the account, and then failed to appear at a hearing before the presiding judgeregarding the account. Board also found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)ignoring the efforts of investigations for the Dayton Bar Association. Respondent left a message oncegiving the investigator a post office box address but did not schedule the requested appointment.Board recommended a permanent disbarment. Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the board‘s findings andrecommended sanction and so ordered a permanent disbarment, citing both Mason (2008) and Glatki(2000) and noting that disbarment is generally the sanction for neglect coupled with misappropriation ofclient‘s money and other professional conduct.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.5(a), 1.5(c)(2), 1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2), 1.15(a)(3), 1.15(a)(4),1.15(a)(5), 1.15(d), 1.16(d), 4.1, 8.1(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(h); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)Aggravation: NONEMitigation: NONEPrior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Disbarment