421 N.E.2d 148
D.D. No. 80-18Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided May 20, 1981.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Acts warranting.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
This cause arises from a complaint filed with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, on March 21, 1980, by the relator, Akron Bar Association, charging respondent, Joseph S. Wise, with misconduct.
The complaint alleged in count No. 1 that respondent was retained by Dawn M. Finch to file a divorce. A final hearing in the divorce proceeding was held on May 8, 1979. As of November 1979, a final entry reflecting a separation agreement had not been filed with the court by respondent. Opposing counsel, Dawn M. Finch and the inquiry committee of relator made numerous, unsuccessful attempts during normal office hours to reach respondent. Relator asserted that such conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(1), DR 1-102(A)(6) and DR 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Count No. 2 of the complaint alleged that relator was retained by Elaine and Roy Greathouse to obtain a dissolution of their marriage in December 1978. A fee was paid by the client, but as of March 15, 1980, respondent had not filed a petition for dissolution on behalf of either Elaine or Roy Greathouse. Moreover, numerous efforts by the Greathouses to contact respondent during normal business hours to determine the status of their case were unsuccessful. Relator asserted that such conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(1), DR 1-102(A)(6), and DR 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The complaint further alleged in count No. 3 that respondent was retained by Clara Lee Bishop in May of 1978 to file for a divorce, and was paid a retainer of $100. Subsequent to respondent’s preparation of the divorce papers, Clara Lee Bishop attempted unsuccessfully to contact respondent in regard to the status of her case. No litigation was commenced
Page 230
by respondent on behalf of Clara Lee Bishop. Relator asserted that such conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(1), DR 1-102(A)(6) and DR 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Count No. 4 of the complaint alleged that respondent issued a check to Appolo Communications dated May 16, 1979, in the amount of $501.41. The check was returned by the bank because there were insufficient funds in respondent’s account. Daniel B. Kovacs, of Appolo Communications, made numerous, unsuccessful attempts to secure payment from respondent. The check was eventually made good by respondent’s mother. Relator asserted that such conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and DR 1-102(A)(6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The complaint further alleged in count No. 5 that the inquiry committee of relator conducted an investigation into counts Nos. 1 and 2. Pursuant to this investigation, correspondence was sent by relator to respondent, to which respondent failed to answer. A meeting was held on December 28, 1979, between respondent, the chairman of the grievance committee of relator and the chairman of the subcommittee of the grievance committee of relator. At that meeting, respondent admitted receipt of the communications and promised that the check set forth in count No. 4 would be made good. In addition, respondent promised to furnish relator with a detailed letter concerning counts Nos. 2, 3 and 4, which relator did not receive. Relator asserted that such conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
A hearing was held at Akron on September 22, 1980, before a hearing panel of the board. Respondent was served through the clerk of the Supreme Court in accordance with Gov. R. V(30). Respondent was not present at the hearing and was not represented by counsel.
The board found, as to counts Nos. 1 and 3, that respondent had engaged in conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law and that respondent had neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of DR 1-102(A)(1), DR 1-102(A)(6) and DR 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As to count No. 4, the board found that respondent had engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and that he had engaged in conduct
Page 231
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and DR 1-102(A)(6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The board noted that respondent was publicly reprimanded by this court on January 16, 1976, and recommended that he be indefinitely suspended.
Mr. William D. Gore and Mr. Stephen D. Hardesty, for relator.
Mr. James G. Ulrich, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
After an examination and review of the record in this cause, this court concurs with the findings and the recommendation of the board of commissioners, and it is hereby ordered that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY and LOCHER, JJ., concur.
HOLMES and C. BROWN, JJ., dissent.
CLIFFORD F. BROWN, J., dissenting.
In my view a disciplinary penalty is sufficient in this case which imposes upon respondent a suspension from the practice of law for one year.
HOLMES, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
Page 232