Opinion
No. 90-884
Submitted October 16, 1990 —
Decided January 9, 1991.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Failure to obtain written opinion from medical expert with respect to sufficiency of medical malpractice claim while informing clients that expert indicated they did not have a claim.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 89-64.
In a complaint filed October 24, 1989, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged that respondent, William C. Lange, had violated, inter alia, DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 7-102(A)(5) (knowingly making a false statement of law or fact in representation of a client). The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court on March 23, 1990.
According to the record, respondent has been engaged in the general practice of law since 1982, and has some experience in the field of medical malpractice. John and Marion McClure retained the respondent to investigate a potential medical malpractice claim. They advanced respondent $500 to cover out-of-pocket expenses, and respondent told the McClures that he would obtain a written opinion from a medical expert with respect to the sufficiency of their malpractice claim. Subsequently, respondent wrote a letter to the McClures stating that their medical records had been reviewed by an expert, and that the expert indicated that they did not have a claim. In fact, respondent never referred the claim to an expert as he had promised his clients.
The panel determined that respondent had not cooperated with the grievance committee of relator in that he had deliberately misrepresented to two members of that committee that he had consulted a medical expert in Tennessee and that he had sent the McClures' medical records to the expert.
Based on the foregoing, the panel found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 7-102(A)(5). The panel concluded that the respondent was truly sorry for his actions inasmuch as he readily admitted his conduct and stated to the panel that his conduct was inexcusable. While relator recommended that respondent be suspended for one year, the panel recommended that respondent be given a public reprimand. The board determined that respondent had returned the $500 fee to the McClures, and further found that the clients had suffered no harm and had not had a legitimate malpractice claim. The board adopted the panel's findings and recommendation.
W. Deems Clifton II, Donald E. Schneider and Harold M. Schwartz, for relator.
James N. Perry, for respondent.
Upon a careful review of the record, we agree with the board's findings and recommendation. Respondent is therefore publicly reprimanded for having violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 7-102(A)(5). Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.
MOYER, C.J., HOLMES and WRIGHT, JJ., dissent.
I would order a sanction of a six-month suspension against respondent.
MOYER, C.J., and HOLMES, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.