484 N.E.2d 698
D.D. No. 85-12Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided October 30, 1985.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension — Intentional failure to carry out contract of employment — Failure to cooperate.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
On June 21, 1984, relator, the Bar Association of Greater Cleveland, filed a two-count complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline against respondent, Thomas Keane.
Count I essentially alleged the following facts. In February 1982,
Page 12
Deborah M. Wood hired respondent to help her in obtaining a divorce. She paid the respondent $150 to carry out his professional services. On March 25, 1982, respondent filed a complaint for divorce on behalf of Wood in the Domestic Relations Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. In August 1982, respondent told Wood that he had experienced some difficulty in perfecting service on her husband, but that her divorce would be finalized by the end of the year. On February 3, 1983, the complaint for divorce was dismissed by the trial court for want of prosecution. In June 1983, respondent told Wood that he had experienced problems in perfecting service on her husband, but that her divorce would be finalized by the end of the year. Relator charged that the foregoing conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4), which prohibits dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and DR 7-101(A)(2), which states that a lawyer shall not intentionally fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client.
Count II of the complaint alleged that the relator attempted to contact the respondent to discuss the Wood matter but that respondent failed to respond to relator’s “[n]umerous” phone calls and to two certified letters. The complaint further alleged that, “* * * [r]espondent has failed to communicate with the Bar Association and/or the Grievance Committee of the Bar Association in any form regarding the Wood matter.” Relator charged that the foregoing conduct violated Gov. Bar R. V(4).
On November 16, 1984, a hearing was held before a panel of the board. Relator introduced evidence showing the respondent had received notice of the hearing by certified mail. Nevertheless, respondent was not present at the hearing, nor was he represented by counsel. After reviewing the evidence, the board concluded that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 7-101(A)(2), and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Robert F. Hesser, Victor L. Cody and Milton J. Guth, for relator.
Per Curiam.
This court has examined the record developed before the board and concurs in the board’s finding that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 7-101(A)(2). We also conclude that relator attempted to contact the respondent to discuss the Wood matter, but that respondent failed to respond to relator’s phone calls and certified letters.
Accordingly, we adopt the recommendation of the board and order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio for a period of one year.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.
Page 13