From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wilson

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 14, 1992
603 N.E.2d 985 (Ohio 1992)

Opinion

No. 91-1771

Submitted October 13, 1992 —

Decided December 14, 1992.

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 90-68.

The Cincinnati Bar Association, relator, filed a complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline ("board") on December 17, 1990, as amended August 5, 1992, against respondent, Joanne A. Wilson (Attorney Registration No. 0021122), charging, inter alia, that she had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). The matter was heard before a panel of the board on March 1, 1991.

In January 1989, Anthony Walker retained Wilson to represent him in a paternity action. He paid her $175 for this representation. After several preliminary hearings, the court in which the action was pending scheduled the case for trial.

Wilson believed that she had authority to discuss settling the case with the Hamilton County Child Support Enforcement Agency, which had cooperated with the mother in filing the case. Walker, who had provided pay stubs to Wilson and counsel for the mother, claims, however, that he was unaware that Wilson was attempting to settle the case. Walker also testified that Wilson told him not to attend the trial because she was attempting to obtain additional testing to determine if Walker was the father. Walker denies giving Wilson any authority to make any specific agreement to settle the case.

On the trial date, February 13, 1990, neither Walker nor Wilson appeared. Wilson claims she did not appear because she believed the case was to be reviewed. She was reached by telephone at her office by counsel for the mother, who declined to consent to a continuance of the case and, instead, negotiated a settlement with Wilson. Wilson, however, did not inform Walker about the terms of the settlement; he learned about them when his personnel office called him in to review some documents to implement the order. After learning of the settlement, Walker fired Wilson and hired another attorney to attempt to set aside the order.

Relator urged the board to suspend Wilson from the practice of law for six months, and Wilson urged dismissal of the complaint.

A panel of the board found Wilson had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and recommended that she be publicly reprimanded. The board adopted the panel's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation.

Beth Silverman and Peter Rosenwald, for relator.

W. David Bertsche, Jr., for respondent.


We agree with the findings and recommendation of the board. We hereby publicly reprimand respondent and tax costs to her.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wilson

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 14, 1992
603 N.E.2d 985 (Ohio 1992)
Case details for

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wilson

Case Details

Full title:CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILSON

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Dec 14, 1992

Citations

603 N.E.2d 985 (Ohio 1992)
603 N.E.2d 985