Opinion
No. 84-39
Decided May 8, 1985.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Malpractice — Continuing pattern.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed two separate complaints against respondent, John D. Harmon. The first complaint resulted in a one-year suspension from the practice of law. See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Harmon (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 14.
In the second complaint, the basis of the action sub judice, two additional and separate instances of disciplinary violations were alleged. The first instance involved respondent's representation of Ron and Carol Jennings as petitioners in a bankruptcy action commenced September 10, 1982. In an adversary proceeding initiated by one of the Jenningses' creditors to determine whether a certain debt was dischargeable in bankruptcy, respondent filed an answer to the creditor's complaint but did not respond to a subsequent motion for summary judgment, although he assured Mr. Jennings he had done so. As a result, the bankruptcy court granted the motion for summary judgment citing the debtors' failure to respond to the motion as the sole basis for its decision. Fortunately for the Jenningses, they were able to engage other counsel who filed a motion for relief from judgment which was granted. Upon reconsideration the court denied the motion for summary judgment.
In May 1983, respondent was retained to represent Nancy Ballbach in the administration of her mother's estate. Although Ballbach advanced respondent $150 for court costs and $600 to open the estate, no action was taken by respondent. In February 1984, Ballbach contacted another attorney and learned of respondent's inaction. After repeated attempts by Ballbach to reach respondent, including by registered mail, respondent refused to contact his client or return her money.
The instant complaint alleges violations of DR 1-102(A)(6), DR 6-101(A)(3) and DR 7-101(A)(1) and (2) for respondent's representation of the Jenningses and violations of DR 1-102(A)(6), DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 7-101(A)(2), and DR 9-102(B)(3) and (4) for his representation of Ballbach.
It should also be noted that respondent was ordered in the first action before this court, Cincinnati Bar Assn., supra, to file his affidavit of compliance, pay board costs, and surrender his certificate of admission by January 21, 1985. As of February 20, 1985, no compliance was rendered by respondent. Moreover, respondent made no attempt to attend his hearing in the instant action, although given appropriate notice by certified mail and telephoned on the date of the hearing.
The board found respondent violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged and recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Gordon C. Greene, Hollis A. Moore III and Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator.
This court concurs in the findings and recommendations of the board of commissioners. The unrebutted disciplinary violations herein, involving two separate instances of attorney malpractice, appear to be part of a continuing and deliberate pattern of irresponsibility by the respondent. As we noted in the first action, "[a]h attorney's failure to render the legal services for which he was paid, or to return any fee advanced by a client, is `tantamount to theft * * *.'" Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Harmon, supra, at 16. As we further noted in Cincinnati Bar Assn., supra, and affirm today, respondent's lack of professional ethics will not be condoned, particularly in view of the disturbing and wide-ranging pattern of malpractice.
It is therefore our judgment that respondent be hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.