Clermont Cty. Bar Assn. v. Meeker

Full title: CLERMONT COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MEEKER

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Nov 7, 1984

470 N.E.2d 891 (Ohio 1984)

470 N.E.2d 891

Opinion

D.D. No. 84-14

Decided November 7, 1984.

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglect of client's affairs — Failure to cooperate in investigation.

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.

Relator, Clermont County Bar Association, after an investigation, filed a complaint against respondent, Carl M. Meeker, with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline ("board"). The complaint alleged that respondent, an attorney duly licensed in this state, committed violations of DR 1-102(A)(1), (5) and (6), DR 6-101(A)(3), and DR 7-101(A)(2) and (3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as Gov. Bar R. I and V(4). Although respondent was served with a copy of the complaint, he filed no answer and entered no appearance at any level of these proceedings.

A hearing was held before a three-member panel of the board on May 9, 1984. Upon receiving testimony from counsel for relator and certain documentary evidence, the board found respondent guilty of the charges contained in the complaint and recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

The facts prompting relator's complaint are as follows. Respondent was retained by James D. Flynn to begin guardianship proceedings for Flynn's parents. Shortly thereafter Flynn's father died. Flynn then retained respondent to settle the estate of his father in addition to commencing guardianship proceedings for Flynn's mother. Flynn thereafter delivered to respondent the certificates of title to a mobile home and automobile owned by Flynn's father for the purpose of settling the estate.

Respondent did file letters of guardianship for Flynn's mother some six months later, but never began proceedings to settle the estate of Flynn's father. Flynn made numerous attempts to contact respondent by phone call and letter. Respondent failed to respond to Flynn's attempts to contact him. Flynn then notified respondent by certified mail that he was discharging respondent and gave respondent a date that he would pick up all the Flynn documents in respondent's possession. When Flynn arrived at respondent's office to pick up the documents, respondent was not present and failed to return Flynn's documents. Flynn subsequently retained another attorney whose letters to respondent went unanswered.

Because respondent never took action to settle the estate of Flynn's father, additional rent had to be paid for the mobile home and the automobile decreased in value.

Once relator had initiated the investigation of respondent, numerous attempts were made by phone call and letter to contact respondent. All attempts to obtain a response from respondent were unsuccessful. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing conducted by relator.

Records additionally reveal that respondent was previously publicly reprimanded by this court for misconduct unrelated to the current charges.¹

1 D.D. No. 79-10.

The board found that respondent's conduct constituted a violation of DR 1-102(A)(1), (5) and (6), DR 6-101(A)(3), and DR 7-101(A)(2) and (3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.² In addition, the board found that respondent violated his oath of office as set forth in Gov. Bar R. I and V(4).³ The board recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

2 DR 1-102 provides in part:
"(A) A lawyer shall not:
"(1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule.
"* * *
"(5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
"(6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."
DR 6-101 states:
"(A) A lawyer shall not:
"* * *
"(3) Neglect a legal matter entrusted to him."
DR 7-101 provides:
"(A) A lawyer shall not intentionally:
"* * *
"(2) Fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services, but he may withdraw as permitted under DR 2-110, DR 5-102, and DR 5-105.
"(3) Prejudice or damage his client during the course of the professional relationship, except as required under DR 7-102(B)."

3 Gov. Bar R. V(4) provides in part:
"The Board of Commissioners or any member thereof, Disciplinary Counsel, and the President, Secretary or Chairman of the Grievance Committee or any regularly organized local bar association in the State may call upon any attorney and counselor at law or judge in the State to assist in any investigation or to testify in any hearing before the Board of Commissioners or any panel for which provision is made in this rule, as to any matter as to which he would not be bound to claim privilege as an attorney at law. No such attorney and counselor at law or judge shall neglect or refuse so to assist in any such investigation or so to testify." (Emphasis added.)

Mr. Gary D. Ostendarp, for relator.

Per Curiam.

This court concurs in the board's finding that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(1), (5) and (6), DR 6-101(A)(2) and (3), and Gov. Bar R. I and V(4). The record amply supports the board's conclusions.

We further agree that respondent should be indefinitely suspended. Respondent's failure to make an appearance at any stage of these proceedings not only thwarts the investigation into professional misconduct but evidences an apathetic and cavalier attitude toward his professional and ethical responsibilities. We are mindful that Gov. Bar R. V(7) requires that respondent be indefinitely suspended in light of his previous sanction. Nevertheless, in our view respondent's conduct would warrant an indefinite suspension in any event.

Accordingly, respondent is hereby 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.