591 N.E.2d 1201
No. 92-458Supreme Court of Ohio.Submitted April 15, 1992 —
Decided June 17, 1992.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 91-16.
On April 18, 1991, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a two-count complaint alleging misconduct against respondent, David W. Poston. Two additional counts were set forth in an amended complaint filed on June 24, 1991, alleging violations of, inter alia, DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation); 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter entrusted); and 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry out a contract of employment for professional services). Respondent filed a timely answer. The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court on November 8, 1991.
Count three — which arose from respondent’s representation of Nellie Goodridge — is particularly relevant. The parties stipulated that on or about September 30, 1988, respondent agreed to represent Goodridge in a legal
Page 23
malpractice action against a Kentucky attorney. Respondent accepted the case on a contingent fee basis and accepted Goodridge’s $1,000 retainer fee. Respondent had no experience in legal malpractice matters nor did he associate himself with an attorney who did.
Respondent shortly thereafter had reservations about the case’s merit. Respondent delayed in filing the complaint and the statute of limitations eventually ran. Respondent nonetheless informed Goodridge that the suit had been filed.
Upon discovery of respondent’s inaction, Goodridge retained other counsel to initiate a malpractice action against respondent. The matter was eventually settled for $35,000 and Goodridge’s $1,000 retainer fee was returned.
At the hearing before the panel, respondent testified that he “simply panicked” when he realized that the deadline for filing Goodridge’s action had passed. His misrepresentations to Goodridge stemmed, he claimed, from his fear of termination from the law firm with which he was then associated. Respondent readily acknowledged his actions and expressed remorse over his behavior.
A number of witnesses testified at the hearing, including Mary G. Hayes, who pursued the malpractice action on Goodridge’s behalf against respondent. She characterized respondent as “very, very honest and very straightforward about what had happened,” noting that respondent “helped me in every manner that he could possibly have helped me.”
Respondent also presented letters from four practicing attorneys, all of whom praised respondent’s competency and integrity. F. Toby Daniel, respondent’s present employer, echoed the sentiment of the others in attesting to respondent’s “ability and commitment to be a fine attorney.”
After considering all the evidence, the panel concluded that the allegations contained in counts one, two and four had not been proven. As to count three, it found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2). The panel recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded. The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation, and also recommended that the costs of the proceeding be charged to respondent.
Arthur Harmon, Edwin W. Patterson III and Paul Moran, for relator.
James N. Perry, for respondent.
Page 24
Per Curiam.
We concur in the findings and 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.