487 N.E.2d 308
D.D. No. 85-37Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided January 2, 1986.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglect of legal matters — Receipt of unearned fees.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
The Cincinnati Bar Association, relator, filed a complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline against Robert L. Braddock, respondent. The allegations of the amended complaint related to Braddock’s representation of John Fegan and also with respect to Braddock’s representation of Edith and Sanford Brown. The relator alleged that respondent violated inter alia, DR 1-102(A)(1), violation of a Disciplinary Rule; DR 1-102(A)(4), engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; DR 7-101(A)(2), failing to carry out a contract of employment entered into with client for professional services; DR 7-101(A)(3), prejudicing or damaging his client during the course of the professional relationship; DR 7-102(A)(3), knowingly failing to disclose that which he is required by law to reveal; Gov. Bar R. V(4), failing to cooperate in an investigation; and DR 6-101(A)(3), neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him.
Page 31
On May 17, 1985, a hearing was held before a panel appointed by the board of commissioners. Braddock did not file an answer to relator’s complaint, did not appear at the hearing, and was not represented by counsel at the hearing. Evidence was presented in support of the six-count complaint against Braddock.
The first count involved Braddock’s representation of John Fegan in a suit against Fegan for $3,190. Braddock agreed to represent Fegan and file a counterclaim on his behalf. Braddock received a $1,500 retainer fee. Nevertheless, Braddock failed to appear for any status calls, and when the case proceeded to trial in October 1983, Braddock did not inform Fegan of the trial date. Braddock did not appear at trial to defend Fegan or prosecute his counterclaim. A judgment against Fegan in the amount of $6,779 was entered and the counterclaim was dismissed. After discovery of the judgment against him, Fegan made numerous attempts to contact Braddock. When Fegan finally reached Braddock, he was advised that Braddock had filed a motion to set aside the judgment. The motion was denied. Braddock filed a notice of appeal but made no arrangements for supersedeas bond.
Fegan was summoned for a judgment debtor examination. Although Braddock told Fegan he would appear, he failed to do so. Braddock failed to file a statement of proceedings in the court of appeals and the appeal was dismissed sua sponte. Fegan was not notified by Braddock of the dismissal of the appeal. During the entire period of his representation of Fegan, Braddock failed to keep scheduled appointments or to respond to telephone calls from Fegan.
The second count of the complaint concerned a $4,000 loan made by Fegan to Braddock’s wife. Braddock had represented to Fegan that a “client” needed to borrow the money to pay a debt owed Braddock. Thereafter, Fegan discovered that the Braddocks were borrowing the money. As security for the loan, the Braddocks gave Fegan possession of jewelry that was represented to be appraised at $9,000. Fegan later discovered that the jewelry used for security was only worth approximately $1,000. Only $600 of the loan was ever repaid.
Count three involved Braddock’s representation of Edith and Sanford Brown, who were being audited for their 1981 income tax return by the Internal Revenue Service. Although the Browns paid Braddock about $200 to represent them, Braddock did not appear at the audit hearing. An assessment of $3,539.62 was entered against the Browns. The Browns made many unsuccessful attempts to contact Braddock by telephone and by appearing at his office in connection with this matter. Braddock refused to communicate with these clients.
Count four involved Braddock’s representation of Edith and Sanford Brown in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. Braddock received $450 in advance for his services and the filing fee, but did not notify the bankruptcy court that the attorney fees had been paid. Braddock then received
Page 32
monthly payments from the trustee in bankruptcy until the bankruptcy court discovered that respondent had already been paid for his services. Braddock did not return the unearned fees to the court.
Count five involves Braddock’s representation of Sanford Brown in a personal injury claim. Brown paid Braddock a filing fee of $50. Although Braddock represented that he had filed suit, in fact he had not. Brown subsequently obtained services of another firm to represent him in his personal injury claim.
The evidence demonstrated that Braddock had failed to cooperate with the Grievance Committee of the Cincinnati Bar Association during the course of its investigation. Accordingly count six of the complaint charged Braddock with failure to cooperate in an investigation.
The Cincinnati Bar Association recommended, at the least, an indefinite suspension. The board of commissioners, having found Braddock in violation of all of the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules, recommended that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and that the costs of these proceedings be taxed to respondent.
Ernest A. Eyon II, Edwin W. Patterson III and Charles E. Mitchell, for relator.
Per Curiam.
Having reviewed the record, the findings of fact and conclusions of fact of the board, this court determines that there are ample facts to justify the board’s findings that Robert L. Braddock did in fact violate DR 1-102(A)(1), 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), 7-102(A)(3), and Gov. Bar R. V(4).
Accordingly, it is the judgment of this court that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and that the costs of these proceedings be taxed to him.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN, DOUGLAS and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.
Page 33