Opinion
No. 92-1340
Submitted October 13, 1992 —
Decided December 9, 1992.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 91-55.
In a complaint filed on December 11, 1991, relator, Dayton Bar Association, charged that respondent, Michael J. McDonald, Attorney Registration No. 0022740, had violated, inter alia, DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal matter). On March 25, 1992, respondent filed an answer admitting some allegations and denying others, and on March 27, 1992, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court held a hearing on the matter.
Evidence and a stipulation at the hearing established that Harold E. Vickerman, a Wisconsin resident, retained respondent to recover costs incurred in connection with Vickerman's purchase of a home in Miamisburg, Ohio, for his adult daughter. When Vickerman's daughter and her husband moved in, they found damage presumably caused by a previous tenant. On November 8, 1989, following Vickerman's original consultation, respondent sent a demand letter to the sellers claiming damages of $3,544.09. In January 1990, complainant advised respondent that the roof leaked, although the roof had been represented to be new.
In August 1990, respondent filed a complaint in the Miamisburg Municipal Court on behalf of Vickerman, his daughter, and her husband, naming as defendants the sellers and two real estate brokers. The sellers and brokers answered the complaint, and both brokers later moved for attorney fees, asserting that the plaintiffs' claims were frivolous. The sellers filed discovery requests and a motion to compel discovery. On December 7, 1990, the Miamisburg court issued an order requiring a response to the sellers' discovery efforts, but respondent did not respond. In January 1991, the trial court granted motions for summary judgment to both real estate brokers. The court also barred plaintiffs from presenting any evidence of damages because of the failure to comply with the December 7 order. In February 1991, the sellers moved for summary judgment, and on March 6, 1991, respondent filed a notice of dismissal.
Respondent neither informed Vickerman nor sought his assistance in order to respond to these developments. Respondent failed to tell Vickerman about the discovery requests, the order compelling discovery, the motions or rulings as to summary judgment, the motions for attorney fees, or the entry prohibiting evidence relating to damages. Respondent also dismissed the case without advice or consent from Vickerman. In June 1991, complainant retained new counsel to handle the issues arising from this litigation.
Two panel members concluded that respondent's conduct, "while tangentially touching" other alleged disciplinary violations, fell squarely under "DR 6-101(A)(3), in that he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him." The third panel member did not find that respondent's conduct violated a Disciplinary Rule and recommended the complaint be dismissed. Relator and respondent suggested a public reprimand, and two panel members recommended a public reprimand. The board adopted the findings, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the panel.
Kevin J. O'Brien, for relator.
Michael J. McDonald, pro se.
We agree with the board's findings and recommendation. Respondent, Michael J. McDonald, is publicly reprimanded for having violated DR 6-101(A)(3). Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.