488 N.E.2d 161
D.D. No. 85-36Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided January 15, 1986.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Failure to carry out contract of employment — Prior one-year suspension.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
Relator, the Cincinnati Bar Association, instituted a disciplinary action against John H. Marble, respondent herein. The complaint alleged that respondent represented to clients that he possessed certain files and information on a pending litigation matter which he would make available for a retainer of $2,500, a sum subsequently paid to respondent. The written agreement was entered into on February 17, 1984. From March 30, 1984 through May 23, 1984, counsel for the clients by numerous telephone calls, and finally by certified mail, requested access to the aforesaid files
Page 86
and information. Respondent did not respond to the calls or correspondence.
At the disciplinary hearing before the panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, respondent averred that he gave advice to the clients by telephone calls and conferences for a total of 25 1/2 hours of services. He further indicated that his files could not be released because of the attorney-client confidentiality relationship held with other clients in the pending litigation.
The board found that respondent had violated DR 7-101(A)(1), (2) and (3), in that he had failed to seek the legal objectives of his client, failed to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services, and prejudiced and damaged his client during the course of the professional relationship. In recognition of the fact that respondent had previously been suspended for a one-year period from the practice of law in Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Marble
(1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 394, the board recommended an indefinite suspension as the appropriate sanction.
Edwin W. Patterson III, Baron H. Gold and David W. Matthews, for relator.
John H. Marble, pro se.
Per Curiam.
Upon review of the record, this court concurs with the board’s findings and conclusions. In view of Marble’s prior sanction, Gov. Bar. R. V(7) necessitates at least an indefinite suspension.
It is therefore the judgment of the court that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.