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

Dawson, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Assn. v.124 Ohio St.3d 22, 2009-Ohio-5959. Decided 11/19/2009.Case Summaries- 61Respondent failed to comply with discovery requests, to oppose a motion for summary judgment, torespond to a motion to deem admitted the statements propounded in requests for admission, and totimely file a notice of appeal. Board adopted the panel‘s findings and recommended sanction. As toCount I, respondent graduated from law school in 2000 and accepted employment with a large law firmin its litigation department. He entered solo practice in 2002 and agreed to take over a number of casesfrom an attorney facing disciplinary proceedings. In one case, he agreed to defend two clients in apending age-discrimination law suit, but did not provide the required notice that he lacked insurance.He entered an appearance as defense counsel in August 2002. The next month, at a final pretrialconference, he requested a continuance of the trial date and an extension of time to complete discoveryand the court continued the trial date until January 2003. He then neglected the case. He failed torespond to plaintiff‘s November 2002 motion for partial summary judgment, which unopposed motion thecourt granted. He failed to reply to the plaintiff‘s motion to deem as admitted the statements inplaintiff‘s requests for admission, which unopposed motion the court granted. The court overruledrespondent‘s motion to reconsider the order granting partial summary judgment, noting respondent‘sfailure to timely respond to the requests for admission and to the motion to deem as admitted thestatement in the requests for admission. The court cancelled the scheduled trial date because respondentfailed to respond to the plaintiff‘s discovery requests. The court held a hearing on a pending motionfor default which motion the court granted in March 2003 and awarded the plaintiff‘s $184, 675($130,900 in compensatory damages, $50,000 in punitive damages, and $3,775 in attorney fees).Respondent failed to timely appeal that default judgment, but the parties later settled for $27,000. Boardfound violations of DR 1-104(A) and 6-101(A)(3). As to Count II, in January 2004, respondent was suedfor malpractice by the Count I couple. In early November 2004, they agree to a settlement which wasreduced to judgment, requiring respondent to pay the former clients $17,000 if he paid on time or$22,000 if he defaulted. He agreed to pay in installments, but he defaulted after paying only oneinstallment. He then agreed to make month payments, but made only one payment under thatagreement. The total of the payments he made before defaulting on his agreements was $5,500.Respondent‘s financial situation worsened by mid-September 2005 and he was facing foreclosure on threerental properties and had a reduced income due to a decrease in public defender appointments. He filedfor Chapter 7 voluntary bankruptcy and discharged his former clients‘ judgment. Board found that heentered the settlement agreements with good faith and without intent to avoid the obligation throughbankruptcy, but that respondent‘s failure to satisfy the judgment violated DR 1-102(A)(6). As anaggravating factor, the board noted respondent‘s suspension in December 2005 for failure to complywith attorney-registration requirements. In a footnote, the court stated that the Board had notedrespondent‘s monetary sanctions for failing to comply with CLE requirements, but that Gov.Bar R.X(5)(C) prohibits consideration of CLE sanctions in disciplinary proceedings. In mitigation, there was noprior discipline, no selfish or dishonest motive, free and full disclosure to relator, and cooperation.BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (d). Board recommended a six-month suspension, all stayed onconditions of no further violations, completion of six hours of CLE in time management or law officemanagement approved by relator, and completion of a one-year monitored probation under a monitorappointed by relator. The court agreed with the board‘s findings and conclusion, but not therecommended sanction. The court ordered a six-month suspension. Citations to Hales (2008) andSchoonover (2005).Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A), 6-101(A)(3)Aggravation: NONEMitigation: (a), (b), (d)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension