562 N.E.2d 886
No. 90-953Supreme Court of Ohio.Submitted July 19, 1990 —
Decided October 31, 1990.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Failure to make prompt delivery of client’s properties — Failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation — Failure to register as an attorney — Causing prejudice or damage to client — Failure to promptly refund unearned fee.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 88-34.
On December 18, 1989, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a third amended complaint against respondent, John Michael McGinley, charging him with numerous violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio in ten different counts. Respondent filed a timely answer to the original complaint in which he denied most of the allegations, but did not answer any of the three subsequent amended complaints. However, on September 7, 1989, relator and respondent filed Agreed Stipulations pursuant to the second amended complaint. At that time, both parties recommended that the matter be submitted on the stipulations and proposed a sanction of public reprimand with formal hearing waived.
After an additional count was brought against respondent in the third amended complaint and respondent failed to answer, relator filed a motion for default pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V(13)(B). The matter was considered by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court.
Count I of the third amended complaint was dismissed. The hearing panel held that insufficient evidence was presented to find a violation under this count.
Count II charged that respondent failed to answer inquiries and return files as requested by a client, Rudolph W. Laudenbach, and that respondent subsequently failed to respond to the requests of Laudenbach’s new attorney, David Dachner, to return the files, in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of legal matter entrusted) and 9-102(B)(4) (failure to make prompt delivery of client’s properties). In the agreed stipulations, respondent admitted the allegations of Count II of the complaint. The panel found sufficient prima facie evidence to conclude that respondent violated DR 6-101 (A)(3) and 9-102(B)(4).
Count III charged that respondent violated Gov. Bar R. V(5)(a) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation), DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on one’s fitness to practice law), by failing to cooperate with the Columbus Bar Association’s Grievance Committee and with relator on their inquiries into matters described in Counts I and II, and by respondent’s failing to register as an attorney for the 1987-1989 period. In the agreed stipulations, respondent admitted receiving letters of inquiry from the Columbus Bar Association’s Grievance Committee and from relator and failing to respond to them. The panel found sufficient prima facie evidence to conclude that respondent violated Gov. Bar R. V(5)(a) and DR 1-102 (A)(6).
Page 15
Count IV charged that respondent violated DR 3-101(B) (violation of regulations of profession) and Gov. Bar R. VI (attorneys required to register with this court). Respondent admitted these violations in the agreed stipulations, and the panel so found.
Count V charged that respondent’s neglect in representing Kimberly Cornett in a domestic relations action caused her to lose custody of her daughter and resulted in her having to pay child support to Robert Cornett, in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(3) (causing prejudice or damage to client). In the agreed stipulations, respondent admitted a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3), and the panel so found.
Count VI charged that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6) and Gov. Bar R. V(5)(a). In the agreed stipulations, respondent admitted receiving inquiries from the Columbus Bar Association’s Grievance Committee and relator concerning the matters in Count V, and that he failed to respond to these inquiries. Respondent admitted his actions violated Gov. Bar R. V(5)(a) and DR 1-102(A)(5), and the panel so found.
Count VII charged that respondent failed to represent Dale Guyton in a divorce complaint, in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(3), resulting in Guyton losing custody of his child and being held responsible for child support payments. In the agreed stipulations, respondent admitted to acting as Guyton’s attorney in a divorce complaint, to failing to file an answer for him, and to failing to appear at a temporary orders hearing. Respondent admitted these actions violated DR 6-101(A)(3), and the panel so found.
Count VIII charged that respondent failed to represent Joseph C. Mosley in a criminal proceeding and that respondent failed to refund the retainer fee, in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3), 9-102(B)(4), and 2-110 (A)(3) (prompt refund of an unearned fee). In the agreed stipulations, respondent acknowledged accepting a $1,000 retainer to represent Mosley and failing to interview witnesses on his behalf. Respondent admitted violating DR 6-101(A)(3) and 9-102(B)(4), and the panel so found.
Count IX charged that respondent violated Gov. Bar R. V(5)(a), DR 1-102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6). Respondent admitted to receiving inquiries from relator concerning the matters in Counts VII and VIII and failing to respond to them, in violation of Gov. Bar R. V(5)(a) and DR 1-102(A)(5), and the panel so found.
Count X was dismissed. The panel determined that insufficient evidence existed to find respondent guilty of the charges brought under this count.
Based on the foregoing, the panel unanimously recommended that respondent should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The board adopted the panel’s findings and its recommendations and also recommended that respondent bear the costs related to these disciplinary proceedings.
J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Karen B. Hull, for relator.
John Michael McGinley, pro se.
Per Curiam.
After reviewing the record, we agree with the board’s findings and recommendations. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. Costs taxed to the respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.
WRIGHT, J., not participating.
Page 16