Opinion
No. 91-2503
Submitted March 17, 1992 —
Decided June 17, 1992.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 90-27.
On April 25, 1990, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a two-count complaint against respondent, Richard T. Andrews. The complaint was amended on October 30, 1990 to include two additional counts. Counts I and II of the amended complaint relate to respondent's representation of Ricky Jackson. Specifically, Count I alleges a violation of DR 2-103[A] (soliciting/recommending oneself for employment). Count II alleges violations of DR 6-101[(A)(3)] (neglecting a legal matter entrusted) and DR 9-102[(B)(1), (3) and (4)] (failing to promptly notify one's client of receipt of settlement funds, failing to maintain records and to properly account to the client for funds received, and failing to pay over funds promptly to the client). Count III relates to respondent's representation of Leslie Rose, Sr., and alleges a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted). Count IV relates to the investigation of Jackson's complaint and alleges a violation of Gov.Bar R. V (failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation) and DR 1-102[(A)(6)] (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice law).
Many of the specific Disciplinary Rule section numbers were deleted from the complaint and board's and panel's findings and conclusions. The correct section numbers are indicated in brackets.
Respondent answered neither the original nor the amended complaint and, on April 8, 1991, relator moved for a default judgment pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B). The motion was duly considered by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court.
The evidence in support of Count I shows that, on July 19, 1986, Jackson filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau alleging that an automobile dealer failed to repair Jackson's car properly. Thereafter, respondent contacted Jackson by telephone, informed him that he was handling similar complaints against the dealer for other clients, and requested that he handle Jackson's case. During a subsequent meeting, respondent cautioned Jackson not to disclose this solicitation. The panel found that respondent's conduct violated DR 2-103(A).
The evidence in support of Count II shows that respondent filed suit against the dealer on behalf of Jackson and three other clients. On October 31, 1988, respondent and the dealer entered into a settlement agreement, which provided that the dealer would pay respondent, as trustee and attorney for all plaintiffs, the sum of $7,500 in eleven monthly installments. Respondent did not inform Jackson of the amount of the settlement, or that $2,300 would be deducted from this sum as attorney fees, despite Jackson's request for a written copy of the settlement agreement. Jackson was only informed that his share of the settlement was $2,400, and was not provided with an accounting of the funds received.
Respondent received settlement installments from the dealer, deposited them in his escrow account, and then made payments to Jackson, the other clients, and himself by checks drawn on that account. At least two of the checks made payable to Jackson were returned for insufficient funds. Jackson received only $1,300 of the $2,400 settlement and attempted to contact respondent concerning his efforts to collect the remainder of the settlement. Respondent generally refused to communicate with Jackson concerning the terms of the settlement and his collection efforts. The panel found that respondent's conduct violated DR 6-101[(A)(3)] and 9-102[(A)(1), (3)] and (4).
The evidence with respect to Count IV shows that, although respondent appeared at the relator's investigatory hearing held in this matter on January 11, 1990, he did not respond to the investigator's letters and telephone calls. The panel found that respondent's conduct violated Gov.Bar R. V and DR 1-102[(A)(6)].
The evidence with respect to Count III shows that, in September 1988, Naomi Rose, the surviving spouse of Leslie A. Rose, Sr., contacted respondent concerning a personal injury case that respondent accepted from Rose prior to his death. Respondent informed Mrs. Rose that the case had been settled and that he would give her a settlement check within a matter of days. Respondent failed to contact Mrs. Rose thereafter. Mrs. Rose retained another attorney, Kalam Muttalib, to handle the matter. Muttalib requested that respondent provide him with information regarding the case, including a copy of a notice for pretrial, which respondent indicated had been scheduled by the court. Muttalib learned that respondent had not filed a lawsuit on Mr. Rose's behalf, and that the insurance company involved had closed its investigation of the claim because respondent had failed to provide it with requested information. The panel found that respondent's conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3). Because respondent did not respond to relator's letters and did not appear at the investigatory hearing on this matter held September 13, 1990, the panel also found that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V and DR 1-102[(A)(6)].
The panel recommended that relator's motion for default judgment be granted and that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the panel. On December 20, 1991, this court issued a show case order granting respondent twenty days in which to show cause why the recommendation of the board should not be adopted. Respondent did not reply.
Peter H. Weinberger, Timothy Bittel and Mitchell Weisman, for relator.
We agree that respondent committed the disciplinary violations found by the board. We also agree with the board's recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.