Summary
In Disciplinary Counsel v. Mbakpuo (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 292, 652 N.E.2d 976, we suspended respondent's license to practice law indefinitely, effective August 23, 1995, after finding that he had committed nine violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and had failed to cooperate in the investigation of that misconduct.
Summary of this case from Disciplinary Counsel v. MbakpuoOpinion
No. 94-2645
Submitted April 24, 1995 —
Decided August 23, 1995.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-08.
In a complaint filed on February 22, 1994, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent, Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo of Adelphi, Maryland, Attorney Registration No. 0052019, with having violated, inter alia, DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law), 2-102(A)(4) (improper representations on professional letterhead), 2-102(C) (improper representation of the existence of partnership), 2-106[A] (charging clearly excessive fee), 3-101[B] (unauthorized practice of law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of entrusted legal matter), and 7-101(A)(3) (prejudice to client during course of professional relationship), and Gov. Bar R. V(5)(a) (now, Gov. Bar R. V[4][G]) (failure to cooperate in an investigation of misconduct). A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court heard the matter on September 16, 1994.
Evidence submitted to prove the allegations in the complaint showed that respondent established an office in Washington, D.C. after his admission to the Ohio Bar in 1991. He was subsequently admitted to the bar of a federal district court in Baltimore, Maryland. However, respondent did not disclose on his office letterhead that he could practice only before that court or the courts of Ohio, and he undertook representation of clients before the courts of Maryland and the District of Columbia. Respondent also represented on his letterhead that he was associated with attorneys and others with whom he had no formal professional association.
Evidence additionally established that respondent neglected the case of a client that he had filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he had apparently been admitted pursuant to a motion pro hac vice. He failed to appear at pretrial proceedings and to respond to discovery, which caused the dismissal of his client's suit, with prejudice, and a recommendation of sanction by the United States Magistrate. In a letter to relator, respondent rejoined the magistrate's criticism by describing her as "one happy liar," who should be "putting [on] a white robe and burning crosses on black people's yard[s] rather than wearing a black robe and seating [ sic] on the bench."
Respondent also threatened the Chairman of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law with physical violence when that committee initiated proceedings against him. In a letter to the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, respondent stated that he had advised the chairman of the committee that he might need "police protection" because of the strained relations between them. He wrote that the chairman is a "worthless cruel creature that [would] die by his treachery and mischief." Respondent added that "[i]f I kill him, he should know by now that he dug his own grave by his mischief and treachery, and has made a murderer out of me. * * *"
Moreover, while representing a client in a personal injury action before a state court in Maryland, respondent applied his contingency fee percentage to the Personal Income Protection portion of settlement proceeds, in direct contravention of Maryland law.
Finally, evidence before the panel established that respondent had failed to cooperate in relator's investigation of respondent's alleged misconduct. Relator sent respondent three letters inquiring about the various grievances lodged against him, yet respondent provided no reply other than to request extensions of the period required for his response.
The panel determined that respondent's conduct in these matters violated all the cited Disciplinary Rules. The panel recommended that respondent receive an indefinite suspension from the practice of law, explaining:
"Respondent has repeatedly displayed a blatant disregard for the Rules of Practice of the jurisdictions in which he has attempted to practice law to the prejudice and damage of his clients. His reactions to those charged with enforcing those rules range from recalcitrance to unprofessional statements to the ultimate threat of physical harm.
"Respondent's disdain for the Standards of Professional Responsibility and the procedures for enforcing them warrant his indefinite suspension from the practice of law * * *."
The board adopted the panel's report, including its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation.
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo, pro se.
Having reviewed the record, we concur in the board's finding that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) and (6); 2-102(A)(4) and (C); 2-106(A); 3-101(B); 6-101(A)(3); and 7-101(A)(3); and Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G). We further concur in the recommended sanction. Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in Ohio indefinitely. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur.
RESNICK, J., dissents and would disbar respondent.