457 N.E.2d 1176
No. 83-22Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided January 11, 1984.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension — Client advised to leave courtroom to avoid arrest on warrant — Neglect of matter entrusted to attorney.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
This matter was heard on April 6, 1983 before a three-member panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The complaint
Page 45
filed by relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, set forth in two counts charges of multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Evidence heard by the panel as to the first count revealed that respondent appeared in the Butler County Court, Area Two, Eastern District, on March 5, 1982 to represent a client, Jay Tyner. While waiting for the case to be called, respondent learned a warrant from another jurisdiction had been issued for Tyner’s arrest. Respondent thereupon advised his client to leave the courtroom or be arrested.
The Clerk of the Butler County Court, Linda D. Lovelace, testified she heard respondent advise his client, “[w]e have to get you out of here before you get arrested.” After respondent and his client left the clerk’s office, Lovelace immediately apprised the presiding judge of what had transpired.
When the case was subsequently called, respondent stated to the judge that his client had not been present in the courtroom and that the person he had been seen talking to was his client’s twin brother. Respondent further denied having advised his client to flee the courtroom.
After the client left the courthouse he was apprehended by police officers and was detained in jail until respondent left the vicinity. Tyner was then brought into the courtroom and interrogated, whereupon he advised the court he had a brother, but not a twin brother.
One week later respondent returned to court to represent Tyner on a contempt of court charge for not having appeared in court previously. Respondent was confronted with the information his client had been brought into court and had disclaimed any twin brother. Respondent responded with the claim he had been on medication, causing him to be “all fogged up.” He acknowledged he had not dealt with the situation properly but did not believe his client should suffer for his “unruliness.” He further denied he told his client to leave the courtroom.
Tyner testified on respondent’s behalf to the effect that: (1) Ent often confused him with his brother; (2) Ent advised him a warrant had been issued against him, but never advised him about “getting out of here”; and (3) he (Tyner) left the courthouse to look for his mother who was in the immediate vicinity to straighten out the outstanding fine which was the basis for the arrest warrant. Tyner admitted he had a previous conviction for falsification.
With respect to count one, respondent was found by the panel to have violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and DR 7-102(A)(5).
In the second count, it was alleged respondent represented Roger Wagner in defense of numerous criminal charges for writing checks against insufficient funds. It was averred that on September 16, 1981, Wagner’s stepfather provided respondent with $275 in cash to make good on Wagner’s checks. Further, it was alleged that during an appearance in the Mayor’s Court of the village of Elmwood Place in Hamilton County, the respondent made representations to the mayor that the checks would be made good. Accordingly, Wagner was only assessed court costs and ordered to make restitution. The second count further charged respondent did not make
Page 46
restitution as ordered until he was contacted by a representative of the Cincinnati Bar Association on June 21, 1982.
Roger Wagner testified before the panel to the effect that: (1) he had spoken to respondent a number of times and had been assured restitution would be made; and (2) respondent once indicated he was being audited and could not release funds at that time, even though Wagner expressed the urgency of the matter by indicating he had received phone calls from a collection agency.
Donald D. Wood, an employee of the collection agency, testified to the effect that: (1) he had contacted respondent on January 11, 1982 and respondent had indicated he would check with his bookkeeper and get back to him; (2) on January 15, 1982, not having heard from respondent, he called again and was told respondent’s books were tied up; and (3) on February 2, 1982 he called once again and was told respondent was having some difficulty with an audit. Respondent’s position was that he had attempted to take care of the matter by searching for the Wagner file which he had misplaced.
The panel concluded that, with respect to the second count, respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), DR 6-101(A)(3) and DR 9-102(B)(3).
Both the panel and the board recommended that based upon both counts respondent should be suspended for a period of one year from the practice of law.
Mr. Peter W. Swenty, Mr. David E.W. Chatfield and Mr. William D. Bell, Sr., for relator.
Mr. Allen Brown, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
This court has carefully reviewed the record pertaining to the case herein and concurs in the board’s findings of fact pursuant to this matter. Accordingly, we concur in the recommendation of the panel and the board that respondent’s actions warrant imposition of a one-year suspension, and respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.
Page 47