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

Clovis, Columbus Bar Assn. v.125 Ohio St.3d 434, 2010-Ohio-1859. Decided 5/5/2010.Case Summaries- 53Respondent accepted a flat fee of $4000 but did not provide any requested legal services, and then failedto cooperate in the disciplinary process. Relator moved for default judgment and the board referred thecase to a master commissioner. In April 2007, hired respondent was hired by an individual to representher husband in his filing of a clemency petition with the Ohio Parole Board. Respondent and theindividual executed a flat-rate fee agreement and the individual paid him $4000. Respondent met with thehusband twice during the summer of 2007. Respondent said he would file the petition by the end ofOctober 2007. The individual had problems reaching the respondent for updates and was met withexcuses when she could eventually reach him. The respondent never filed any documents with the paroleboard. In August 2008, the wife told respondent by letter that if he did not return the $4000 and herpaperwork by August 15 that she would file a grievance. Respondent did not respond. She filed agrievance in September 2008. More than two years after she sought representation, the individual servingas the husband‘s attorney-in-fact, filed the clemency petition. As of October 20, 2009, respondent hadnot returned the documents or refunded the money. As to this conduct, Board adopted the mastercommissioner‘s findings that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.5(a), and 8.4(h). Relator alsocharged a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), but the master commissioner and the board did not findsufficient evidence as required by Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1)(b) to support a finding and dismissed it.During the relator‘s investigation of this matter, respondent failed to respond to all attempts atcommunication by relator, including multiple letters and phone messages. The complaint was servedupon respondent and signed for by Krista O‘Neill, however, respondent never answered the complaint.As to this conduct, the board adopted the master commissioner‘s findings that respondent violatedProf.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). The record demonstrated that respondent failed to actwith reasonable diligence and promptness, charged an excess fee, engaged in conduct adversely reflectingon fitness to practice law, failed to respond to relator‘s demand for information, and failed to cooperate inthe disciplinary investigations. The following factors were found in aggravation, pursuant to BCGDProc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (e), (g), and (i): Respondent‘s prior suspension on November 3, 2009 for failingto register; failure to cooperate; failure to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct; and notattempting to make restitution. There were no factors in mitigation. Citations to Kaplan (2010),Goodlet (2007), Gosling (2007), and Wagner that neglect and failure to cooperate generally warrant anindefinite suspension. Citations to Weaver (2004), Fox (2006) and Tyack (2005) that taking retainers andfailing to carry out contracts of employment is tantamount to theft and indefinite suspensions have beenimposed. The board adopted the master commissioner‘s recommended sanction of an indefinitesuspension. The Court agreed with the Board‘s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendedsanction, and so ordered and so ordered.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.5(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(h); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)Aggravation: (a), (e), (g), (i)Mitigation: NONEPrior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension