2010 Ohio 6206
Ohio2010Background
- Respondent James Russell Henry, admitted to practice in 2003, faced a nine-count misconduct complaint filed April 12, 2010.
- Relator sought default after Henry did not answer; master commissioner recommended permanent disbarment.
- Board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact and misconduct; court reviewed and agreed.
- Counts show neglect, failure to keep clients reasonably informed, mismanagement, and failure to respond to disciplinary inquiries.
- Count-specific findings include improper delays, misbilling, failure to return papers/documents, and phone/office deregistration; serious pattern of misconduct.
- Sanction: permanent disbarment with costs taxed to Henry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Henry’s conduct violate professional rules governing diligence and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice? | Disciplinary Counsel argues multiple counts show neglect and prejudicial conduct under 1.3, 8.4(d), 8.4(h). | Henry did not participate; no responsive argument presented. | Yes; violations established and supported by record. |
| Was the alleged refund of unearned fees under 1.16(e) proven? | DC asserts Henry failed to refund unearned fees after withdrawal. | No responsive argument; record lacks sworn evidence to support the claim. | No; 1.16(e) violation dismissed for lack of prima facie evidence. |
| Did Henry’s conduct toward other clients constitute neglect and failure to communicate under 1.3 and 1.4(a)(3)? | Counts Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine show persistent neglect and poor client communication. | No responsive argument; record stands as admitted by default. | Yes; violations found for multiple counts. |
| Did Henry’s failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations violate 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)? | Henry knowingly failed to respond to 11 inquiries; several letters unclaimed. | No defense offered due to default; no responsive argument. | Yes; violations found for all nine counts. |
| Is permanent disbarment the appropriate sanction? | Pattern of neglect, noncooperation, misappropriation of fees, and harm to vulnerable clients justify disbarment. | Not applicable due to default; no counter-arguments. | Yes; disbarment warranted and agreed by the court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moushey, 104 Ohio St.3d 427 (2004-Ohio-6897) (retainers taken but not carried out contracts of employment justify disbarment)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 102 Ohio St.3d 264 (2004-Ohio-2683) (taking retainers and failing to perform constitutes theft of fee)
- Stark County Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (presumptive sanction for attorney misconduct involving retainers and non-performance)