572 N.E.2d 685
No. 90-2537Supreme Court of Ohio.Submitted February 13, 1991 —
Decided May 29, 1991.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with six months of suspension stayed pending completion of six-month probation period — Neglect of a legal matter — Failure to zealously represent client — Failure to register as an attorney.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 89-63.
Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged respondent, Robert H. Sack, with violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6) (misconduct); 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter entrusted); and 7-101(A)(1), (2) and (3) (failure to represent a client zealously). Additionally, respondent was charged with violating Gov. Bar R. VI(1) and (6) (failure to register as an attorney). Respondent, after requesting an extension of time, answered relator’s complaint on February 14, 1990. A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) heard the matter on November 15, 1990.
The parties stipulated the facts giving rise to the complaint. As to Count One, respondent, in late 1988, agreed to represent Joyce A. Juilfs, without charge, in seeking a modification of child support payments. At respondent’s request, Juilfs tendered a $175 check for filing fees and court costs.
Respondent deposited Juilfs’ check into his personal bank account. His account balance subsequently fell below $175. Respondent never expended the money towards Juilfs’ case, nor did he return the funds to her.
Respondent, an admitted alcoholic, testified that soon after taking Juilfs’ money he began to drink on a daily basis. This continued for approximately a month, until he entered an alcohol treatment program. Respondent claimed that during his four-week stay at the rehabilitation center, he attempted unsuccessfully to reach Juilfs.
As to Count Two, respondent
Page 38
stipulated that he did not register a change of business and residential addresses with the Supreme Court of Ohio. He was unaware that he had not been registered as an attorney from 1987-1989. He admitted that he did not register for the 1989-1991 biennium, but nonetheless continued to represent clients sporadically.
Based on the stipulated facts and testimony, the panel found respondent guilty of each violation alleged. In making its recommendation, the panel noted that respondent’s violations, while clear, did not involve fraud or dishonesty. In recommending a one-year suspension, the panel made specific reference t Columbus Bar Assn. v. Gill (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 4, 528 N.E.2d 945, and Toledo Bar Assn. v. Bridgeforth (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 2, 531 N.E.2d 317. The panel further recommended that nine months of respondent’s suspension be stayed and that he be placed on probation for three years following the first three months of the sanction.
The board adopted the findings and recommendation of the panel, and further recommended that costs be taxed to respondent.
D. Michael Poast and R. Guy Taft, for relator.
Robert H. Sack, pro se.
Per Curiam.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree with the board’s findings of fact and adopt its recommendation of a one-year suspension. We order, however, that six months of respondent’s suspension be stayed pending the successful completion of a six-month probation period. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.