Opinion
D.D. No. 80-19
Decided March 31, 1981.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Acts warranting — Violation of Gov. R. V and VII and DR 6-101(A)(3).
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
Relator, Dayton Bar Association, instituted this complaint before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline alleging that respondent, Mike J. Stinchfield, was guilty of misconduct. Specifically, relator alleged as follows:
"1. Breach of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) in that Respondent accepted a fee to undertake certain legal action but willfully and negligently failed to take timely action while representing his client, one Dorothy Luten thereby neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him.
"2. Breach of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) in that he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him involving a medical malpractice case and the settling of the malpractice claim on March 14, 1977 and the taking of a fee therefor, but willfully and negligently failing to take timely action to complete the handling of an estate in relation to the handling of such malpractice settlement. Such breach is the neglect of a legal matter entrusted to the Respondent by Maxine Long.
"3. Breach of Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) in that he neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by Pat Brewster and Debra Senecal in that Respondent accepted a fee to undertake certain legal action but willfully and negligently failed to take timely action while representing his client resulting in the arrest of Richard Senecal and the failure to appear at the trial of the said Richard Senecal.
"4. Breach of Rule V of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio in that Respondent has failed to cooperate with the Committee on Professional Ethics or the Grievance Committee of the Dayton Bar Association in its investigation as provided for under such Rule V.
"5. Breach of Rule VII, providing for registration of attorneys and Rule VIII, providing for unauthorized practice of law, of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, respectively, in that Respondent is not registered to practice law in the State of Ohio as required by such Rules."
A hearing was held on July 10, 1980. Respondent was represented by counsel. Before the admission of testimony, respondent moved to dismiss count No. 1, alleging that the bar association had failed to proceed with prosecution of count No. 1 at a previous hearing on October 14, 1977. During the hearing, respondent submitted evidence, including psychological evaluations, that he suffered from severe alcoholism, gout, arthritis, and orthopedic problems.
Based on the stipulations of facts, the exhibits, and the testimony, the board granted respondent's motion to dismiss count No. 1, finding that the bar association was guilty of laches in not pursuing that count at the earlier hearing. The board held further that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility as to counts Nos. 2 and 3, and that he violated Gov. R. V for failure to cooperate with the Dayton Bar Association in the conduct of its investigation. Respondent was also found to have breached Gov. R. VII, providing for the registration of attorneys, but found not to have violated Gov. R. VIII, providing against the unauthorized practice of law.
The board of commissioners recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Mr. Robert P. Bartlett, Jr., for relator.
Mr. Earl H. Moore, for respondent.
There is ample evidence in the record to support the findings of the board of commissioners, and we concur in their recommendation.
"One of the fundamental tenets of the professional responsibility of a lawyer is that he should maintain a degree of personal and professional integrity that meets the highest standards. The integrity of the profession can be maintained only if the conduct of the individual attorney is above reproach." Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stein (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 77, 81.
It is hereby ordered that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.
HOLMES and C. BROWN, JJ., dissent.
I agree that sanctions must be applied in this disciplinary matter, but I vary with the majority as to the severity or degree. In my view, the facts of this matter present a circumstance concerning which this court should apply one of the most recently promulgated rules of sanction, that being a one-year suspension.
Here, there is no fact pattern involving the moral turpitude of this attorney, nor did he abscond with clients' funds. His violations, in the main, involved a marked incapacity to appropriately handle his clients' problems and affairs. Whether such absence of this capability stemmed from a low level of legal expertise, or his health and psychological problems, as argued by the respondent, this writer is unable to completely evaluate. But, in any event, I feel this case does not present the type of situation that we have considered previously wherein we meted out the sanction of indefinite suspension.
Accordingly, I would vote to suspend respondent from the practice of law for the period of one year.
C. BROWN, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.