Opinion
D.D. No. 83-11
Decided June 8, 1983.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglect of matters entrusted to attorney — Statute of limitations allowed to run barring clients' claims — Professional services not performed although fee accepted — Correspondence manufactured after the fact — Prior public reprimand.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The Cincinnati Bar Association, relator herein, filed a two-count complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline charging that Charles B. Ebel, respondent herein, was in neglect of his duties to his clients.
Count I charged that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) and (6), DR 6-101(A)(3) and DR 7-101(A)(2) and (3) in the representation of Marcella and Randall Stacy in a personal injury action. The effect of relator's claim is that respondent neglected this legal matter entrusted to him and allowed the running of a statute of limitations that barred his clients' claim.
Relator alleged in Count II that respondent was negligent in his duties to Patricia and Kerry Kincaid, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) and (6), DR 6-101(A)(3) and DR 7-101(A)(2) with regard to an adoption matter. Relator charged that while respondent accepted a fee from the Kincaids, he failed to file the proper papers and failed to answer their inquiries.
A hearing was held on relator's complaint on February 25, 1983. Respondent did not file an answer to the complaint, did not appear at the hearing, and did not have a legal representative present. The record indicates that respondent did receive timely notice of the complaint and proceedings.
The board found that the respondent, in the representation of the Stacys and the Kincaids, had engaged in conduct in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) and DR 7-101(A)(2) and (3). In so holding, the board noted that while "[b]oth the Stacy and Kincaid matters involved letters purportedly sent to the clients which, if sent, would indicate the fault of delay to be that of the client and not the attorney," the evidence supports the conclusion that "* * * these letters were never sent, but were efforts of respondent to exculpate himself manufactured after the fact." The board found that this conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4). Noting that respondent had been publicly reprimanded by this court on January 26, 1982, and that these charges herein stemmed from acts which were completed prior to this date, the board recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Ms. Susan J. Dlott, Mr. Frederick O. Kiel and Mr. David W. Matthews, for relator.
After a careful examination and review of the record in this cause, this court concurs with the findings and conclusions of the board that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), DR 6-101(A)(3) and DR 7-101(A)(2) and (3).
It is the judgment of this court that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.