471 N.E.2d 1381
D.D. No. 84-7Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided December 19, 1984.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension — Neglect of legal matters.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed the original complaint in this disciplinary case against respondent, John D. Harmon. That complaint alleged violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), DR 1-102(A)(6), DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 7-101(A)(2), Canon 9, and DR 9-102(B)(3) and (4). These allegations stem from respondent’s February 1981 agreement to represent Max Palm III in a lawsuit against Palm’s former insurance agent. Palm questioned respondent in December 1981 about the status of that action and was impliedly informed that a suit had been filed. Palm testified that from January 1982 through February 1983 Palm telephoned respondent over one dozen times inquiring as to the progress of the litigation, but respondent never returned his calls.
In March 1983, Palm discharged respondent as his attorney and requested that respondent return his papers. Respondent promised to return Palm’s papers but failed to do so as of July 1983.
Page 15
Palm testified further that he gave respondent a twenty-five dollar check as a retainer on the lawsuit. The evidence reveals that the check was honored in March 1981. Some time later respondent told Palm that the check had bounced, and Palm gave respondent another twenty-five dollar check which was not negotiated. Respondent failed to account to Palm for the original twenty-five dollars.
The original complaint also states that respondent did not cooperate with the Cincinnati Bar Association’s investigation of his conduct. It is undisputed that respondent ignored all but one telephone call and paid no attention to several letters.
After the Cincinnati Bar Association filed the original complaint, the Butler County Bar Association was joined as a relator. The complaint was amended to include another count involving respondent’s conduct towards a Butler County resident. Respondent failed to answer the amended complaint and was deemed to have entered a general denial.
At the hearing before the board of commissioners, respondent admitted the facts and allegations contained in the amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged that in March 1983 respondent agreed to represent Glenn Meade of West Chester, Ohio, regarding a collection matter pending in Mason Municipal Court. Respondent requested and received three hundred dollars before representing Meade at a judgment debtor examination concerning funds which Meade allegedly owed a lumber company. Respondent was to keep one hundred dollars as his fee and pay two hundred dollars to the lumber company.
Respondent told Meade that his presence was not required at the hearing and that respondent would appear on his behalf. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing or secure a continuance.
The court ordered a body attachment of Meade and set substantial bond. After receiving notification of the body attachment, Meade went to the police department where he was detained until his bond was posted.
After his release, Meade asked respondent to return his three hundred dollars. Respondent promised to do so within a few days but then failed to keep several appointments with Meade.
Finally, on May 19, 1983, respondent gave Meade’s wife a two hundred dollar check dated May 23, 1983, which she deposited the following day. The check was returned for insufficient funds, and several weeks later, the bank closed respondent’s trust account for failing to maintain satisfactory banking relations. Despite continuing efforts, Meade has failed to obtain a refund of his three hundred dollars.
It was the finding of the board that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(6), DR 7-101(A)(2), and DR 9-102(B)(3) and (4).[1]
Page 16
The board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.
“(A) A lawyer shall not:
“* * *
“(6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.”
DR 7-101 states in pertinent part:
“(A) A lawyer shall not intentionally:
“* * *
“(2) Fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services, but he may withdraw as permitted under DR 2-110, DR 5-102, and DR 5-105.”
DR 9-102 states in pertinent part:
“(B) A lawyer shall:
“* * *
“(3) Maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to his client regarding them.
“(4) Promptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by a client the funds, securities, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive.”
Mr. Gordon C. Greene, Mr. Hollis A. Moore III and Mr. Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator Cincinnati Bar Association.
Mr. Thomas W. Baden, for relator Butler County Bar Association.
Mr. John D. Harmon, pro se.
Per Curiam.
The two separate incidents involved in this action show neglect on the part of respondent in fulfilling his responsibilities as an attorney. When an attorney is retained by a client, he must competently and conscientiously perform his legal services. An attorney’s failure to render the legal services for which he was paid, or to return any fee advanced by a client, is “tantamount to theft of that fee from the client.” Disciplinary Counsel v Sigall (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 15.
This court in Sigall addressed a case of neglect by an attorney similar to the instant case and imposed a one-year suspension Id. at 16-17. We find that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6), DR 7-101(A)(2), and DR 9-102(B)(3) and (4). Respondent’s total failure to attend to matters entrusted to him by his clients and his unprofessional financial dealings reflect adversly on the entire legal profession and will not be tolerated.
It is the judgment of this court 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., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.
Page 17