550 N.E.2d 169
No. 89-1557Supreme Court of Ohio.Submitted November 15, 1989 —
Decided February 7, 1990.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Failure to notify opposing counsel of client’s acceptance of proposed settlement offer.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 88-57.
Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) charging Richard K. Mittendorf, respondent, with misconduct, and alleging violation of DR 6-101 (A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted), 7-101(A)(1) (failure to seek the lawful objectives of a client), 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry out a contract of employment), and 7-101(A)(3) (damaging a client during the course of the professional relationship). Respondent timely answered. In June 1989, a hearing was held before a panel of the board.
The evidence adduced before the hearing panel was as follows. In late 1987, Joyce A. Williams retained respondent to defend her in a civil action. At a meeting in mid-December 1987, respondent told Williams that he would contact opposing counsel, David C. Lane, to discuss settlement.
In February 1988, respondent discussed a settlement proposal with Williams. Williams directed respondent to tender the offer to Lane, which he did. By letter dated March 17, 1988, Lane conditionally accepted the proposal. Respondent took no further action.
On April 28, 1988, Lane sent a letter to respondent asking whether the settlement conditions had been met, and advising respondent that if the conditions were not met, or if an
Page 11
answer was not submitted on or before May 5, 1988, a motion for default judgment would be filed. When respondent did not respond, Lane moved for default judgment. Respondent did not reply to the motion. Judgment was entered against Williams.
On learning of the default judgment, Williams attempted unsuccessfully to contact respondent. She then terminated her attorney-client relationship with respondent, and retained other counsel who filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. Respondent also filed a motion to have the judgment set aside. Both motions were denied.
A majority of the panel found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A) (3), but concluded that there was no need to pass upon the allegations that he had violated DR 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3). The majority also explained that the discipline respondent received in Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Mittendorf (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 123, 4 OBR 369, 447 N.E.2d 103, had not entered into their consideration because of the totally different types of conduct involved. Relator, respondent, and the members of the panel all recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded.
In August 1989, the board considered the matter and adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation. The board further recommended that costs be taxed to respondent.
Barbara K. Barden, David T. Croall and Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator.
R. Scott Croswell III and Gregory L. Adams, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
We concur in the findings of misconduct and in the recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.