Opinion
D.D. No. 86-33
Decided August 19, 1987.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Two-year suspension by Indiana Supreme Court — Resignation from bar of Kentucky — Neglect of legal matter — Failure to carry out contract of employment — Failure tofile certificate of registration.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
Relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, alleges in its complaint that respondent, Terry A. Geron, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio on November 7, 1980 and was also a member of the bars of Indiana and Kentucky.
Relator alleges that respondent has been suspended from the practice of law for a period of not less than two years by the Indiana Supreme Court. Documents placed in evidence by relator establish that respondent advised one of his clients not to abide by a court order and not to appear at a hearing, in violation of DR 7-101(A)(3), 7-102(A)(3), (7) and (8). Further, respondent falsely testified that he had not entered the court with his client, thereby violating DR 7-102(A)(4), (5) and (6). Respondent threatened his client with bodily harm to gain perjured testimony, thereby violating DR 1-102(A)(1) and (3). It was also alleged that respondent's conduct was dishonest and deceitful, prejudicial to the administration of justice, and reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(1), (4), (5) and (6).
Relator also alleges that the Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Indiana filed another complaint for disciplinary action against respondent for his failure to file either a divorce or dissolution action on behalf of several clients and by misrepresenting to his clients that such action had been filed, in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A), and 1-102(A)(4), (5), and (6). The disciplinary proceedings in this matter are pending.
Relator also alleges that the Kentucky Bar Association filed three separate complaints for disciplinary action against respondent on June 28, 1983, September 19, 1983 and February 23, 1984. The three charges were consolidated by the Inquiry Tribunal of the Supreme Court of Kentucky. On June 18, 1984, the Supreme Court of Kentucky accepted respondent's resignation, effective July 1, 1984.
Relator also alleges that Jeremiah Shastid, of Cincinnati, Ohio, engaged respondent to represent him in a medical malpractice action. In October 1984, respondent obtained Shastid's consent to settle with the doctor's attorneys. In March 1985, respondent reported that a $5,000 settlement had been reached. Thereafter, Shastid inquired about the settlement proceeds and respondent told him that the money had been sent to an associate in Columbus. Shastid was unable to locate such an attorney in Columbus. Subsequently, Shastid contacted respondent, who admitted to Shastid that he had never filed a complaint and that there was no settlement.
Relator asserts that respondent's conduct in not filing a complaint and then misrepresenting that he obtained a settlement and also misrepresenting that the money could be obtained from an alleged associate constituted a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3), a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; DR 7-101(A)(1), a lawyer shall not intentionally fail to seek the lawful objectives of his clients through reasonably available means permitted by law and the Disciplinary Rules; DR 7-101(A)(2), a lawyer shall not intentionally fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services; DR 7-101(A)(3), a lawyer shall not intentionally prejudice or damage his client during the course of the professional relationship; DR 1-102(A)(4), a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; DR 1-102(A)(5), a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and DR 1-102(A)(6), a lawyer shall not engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.
Relator also alleges that respondent failed to file a Certificate of Registration with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio and pay registration fees by September 1, 1985, as required by Gov. Bar R. VI. Respondent has not applied for inactive status. Relator asserts that respondent's failure to register or to apply for inactive status violates Gov. Bar R. VI.
A hearing on these matters was held on June 9, 1986 in Columbus, Ohio. Respondent did not appear nor was he represented by counsel. Service by certified mail was returned marked "unclaimed." Numerous unsuccessful attempts were made to contact respondent by telephone and mail. The respondent has not filed any responsive pleading or answer and the board found him to be in default.
Based upon the foregoing evidence, the board found respondent to have violated the following Disciplinary Rules: DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6); and to have violated Gov. Bar R. VI(6).
Further, the board noted that the resignation from the practice of law in Kentucky and the suspension from the practice of law in Indiana for a period of two years beginning January 18, 1986, reflected adversely on respondent's fitness to practice law in Ohio.
The board recommended that the respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.
J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, Karen B. Hull and Mark H. Aultman, for relator.
Having reviewed the record, the findings of fact, and conclusions of the board, this court determines that there are sufficient facts to justify the finding that Terry A. Geron did in fact violate DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), and 1-102(A)(6), and Gov. Bar R. VI(6).
Further, the disciplinary proceedings in both Indiana and Kentucky may be relied upon as further evidence of respondent's unfitness to practice law. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Nothstein (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 108, 21 OBR 400, 488 N.E.2d 180.
We concur in the recommendation of the board, and hereby indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.