Opinion
No. 89-2164
Submitted February 21, 1990 —
Decided April 18, 1990.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension — Neglecting an entrusted legal matter — Failure to timely file an action in a Pennsylvania court before statute of limitations had run — Prior violations of Disciplinary Rules.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 88-51.
In a complaint filed October 27, 1988, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged that respondent, Jane M. Grote, had violated, inter alia, DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter). The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court on June 23, 1989. The parties stipulated to most of the facts underlying the complaint during the hearing.
The record substantiates that Billy G. Pittman retained respondent in January 1985 to represent him in a claim for personal injuries sustained due to a November 29, 1984 trucking accident in Pennsylvania. In October 1985, respondent received a settlement offer from an insurance carrier in connection with Pittman's claim. Respondent did not relay this offer to Pittman and, although the carrier inquired about settlement again in December 1985 and January 1986, she did not respond to the offer.
Between January 1985 and June 1987, Pittman telephoned respondent approximately once every three months to ask about the status of his case and to advise her of his continuing medical treatment. When Pittman called in January 1987, respondent told him that she needed updated medical information and that she would forward some releases for his doctors to sign. However, after looking at Pittman's file, respondent became concerned that the Pennsylvania statute of limitations had run for Pittman's claim.
After delaying research on the matter because she was afraid of what she might discover, respondent concluded in March or April 1987 that she had, indeed, missed the Pennsylvania filing deadline. Thereafter, respondent did not tell Pittman that his claim was no longer actionable, even though he continued to call her regularly about his case. She did not disclose this even when Pittman, who had finally consulted and retained another attorney, specifically asked her about the statute of limitations during a meeting in June 1987. In fact, respondent admitted that she had missed the statute only when Pittman's new attorney asked about the problem.
Based on the foregoing, the panel found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 6-101(A)(3). Before making its recommendation, the board considered several letters praising respondent's expertise in domestic relations law, but also that respondent had been publicly reprimanded for having violated these same two Disciplinary Rules on May 6, 1987 (D.D. No. 87-5). The 1987 order required respondent to be indefinitely suspended or permanently disbarred, depending on the severity of her misconduct, if she ever violated a Disciplinary Rule again. However, after determining that it had discretion in this area under the recent amendments to Gov. Bar R. V(8), the panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months for her misconduct. The board adopted both the board's findings and its recommendation.
Carolyn A. Taggart and Joseph L. Trauth, Jr., for relator.
James N. Perry, for respondent.
We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 6-101(A)(3). However, we find respondent's misconduct deserving of a more severe sanction than that recommended by the board. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.