Opinion
No. 90-793
Submitted June 19, 1990 —
Decided November 7, 1990.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglecting an entrusted legal matter — Failing to carry out a contract for employment — Engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty or misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney's fitness to practice law — Charging an excessive fee — Failing to promptly deliver client's funds upon request — Failing to seek client's lawful objective — Failing to cooperate in investigation of misconduct.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 89-45.
In an amended complaint filed on October 23, 1989, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent, Clarence L. Chavers, with five counts of misconduct. Respondent was served with the complaint, but did not answer. Accordingly, relator filed a motion for default with supporting exhibits pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V(13)(B). The motion was considered by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court.
With respect to Count I of the complaint, the exhibits substantiate that Merrill T. Maines retained respondent in 1986 to, among other things, modify the visitation arrangements between Maines and his minor children. Respondent did not perform any services in return for the $160 that Maines gave him. Maines later sued respondent for these fees in the Cleveland Municipal Court, and the court granted a default judgment against respondent. From this, the panel determined that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter) and 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract for employment).
With respect to Count II, the exhibits substantiate that Terry C. Parham retained respondent in 1985 to represent Parham as administrator of a decedent's estate. Respondent took $6,000 in attorney fees from the estate before seeking the probate court's approval, and he apparently paid himself $5,000 of these fees with two checks that Parham had given him to pay creditors of the estate. Later, when respondent did apply to the probate court for fees, the court disallowed $3,150 of the charges and ordered respondent to return that amount to the estate. Respondent apparently also failed to account to Parham for $1,000 that respondent received as earnest money from the purchaser of an estate asset. Moreover, Parham was later removed as administrator of the decedent's estate because respondent did not file an accounting. The panel determined from these events that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney's fitness to practice law), 2-106(A) (charging an excessive fee), and 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly deliver client's funds upon request).
With respect to Count III, the exhibits substantiate that Dinice Jordan retained respondent in 1988 to handle her divorce and to file bankruptcy for her. Jordan paid respondent $300, but respondent did little or nothing for this fee. From this, the panel determined that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2).
With respect to Count IV, the exhibits substantiate that Solomon Rhone retained respondent in 1985 to challenge an adverse common pleas court judgment. Rhone paid respondent at least $2,000 to prepare a motion for new trial or to appeal the judgment. Respondent eventually filed a motion for new trial in Rhone's case, but not until the motion was almost a year out of rule. Rhone has since retained another attorney, sued respondent for unearned fees, and been granted a default judgment against respondent. The panel determined from these events that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek client's lawful objective), and 7-101(A)(2).
With respect to Count V, the exhibits substantiate that Morrell Driscoll, who had been fired by his employer, retained respondent to challenge the discharge as being the result of race discrimination. Driscoll had been issued a right-to-sue letter by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and he paid respondent $600, apparently to commence an action in federal court. Respondent, however, failed to file the suit. From this, the panel determined that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2).
In addition to the foregoing, the panel found that relator had made reasonable efforts to contact respondent and that respondent had failed to cooperate with relator's investigation, a violation of Gov. Bar R. V(5)(a). However, the panel also noted that respondent has been a member of the Ohio Bar since 1951 and that he has never before been the subject of disciplinary sanctions. The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from practicing law in Ohio. The board adopted the panel's findings and its recommendation.
J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Charles T. Brown, for relator.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, we agree with the board's findings of misconduct and its recommendation. We therefore order that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.