Opinion
No. 91-1249
Submitted September 18, 1991 —
Decided December 11, 1991.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 90-72.
In a two-count complaint filed on December 17, 1990, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, charged respondent, James E. Caywood, with multiple Disciplinary Rule violations. Count I alleged violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter entrusted), 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry out a contract of employment) and 7-102(A)(5) (knowingly making a false statement of fact). Count II charged that the misconduct specified in Count I violated the probation requirements imposed upon respondent in a previous disciplinary case, Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 186, 546 N.E.2d 411. On February 15, 1991, the instant action was consolidated with a proceeding instituted by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to revoke respondent's probation (case No. 18-88-B).
In his amended answer, respondent admitted the violations contained in Count I. The matter proceeded to hearing before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court on May 8, 1991.
Count I arose out of respondent's representation of James T. Hilliard in a tort action. Hilliard retained respondent in October 1986, following Hilliard's September 27, 1986 injury at Highland Park Cemetery. Respondent, however, did not file suit on Hilliard's behalf until after the statute of limitations had expired. When respondent finally filed the complaint, he knowingly misrepresented Hilliard's date of injury in an effort to render the action timely. Later, in early 1989, respondent gave ongoing assurances to Hilliard that the case was "going our way."
An unopposed motion for summary judgment was granted in defendant's favor in May 1989. As late as early 1990, however, respondent informed Hilliard that the case was still progressing. Hilliard learned the true outcome of his case only when other counsel was retained.
Respondent eventually made restitution to Hilliard in the amount of $6,500. Hilliard dismissed his pending action against respondent, satisfied that the amount tendered constituted a fair settlement.
At the hearing, respondent admitted that he had "no excuse" for not filing Hilliard's suit within the statute of limitations period. Respondent attributed his failure to confront Hilliard truthfully to embarrassment, and expressed remorse for the consequences of his behavior, stating that he was "ashamed."
The panel dismissed Count II and found respondent guilty of the violations set forth in Count I. Noting that the instant proceeding marked the second time that respondent was found to have violated DR 7-102(A)(5), the panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
The board of commissioners adopted the panel's findings of fact and recommendation. It also recommended that the cost of the proceedings be taxed to respondent.
Respondent timely objected to the board's recommendation. Citing his cooperation during the course of the proceedings and his restitution to Hilliard, respondent asked that he be placed on an additional one-year period of monitored probation.
Engeline H. Koepper, Deborah R. Akers and Gary S. Fishman, for relator.
Edwin H. Jacobs, for respondent.
We concur in the board's findings of respondent's violations of the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules and in its recommendation. Respondent is hereby 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.