CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. SLATTERY.
No. 95-841
Supreme Court of Ohio
January 10, 1996
74 Ohio St.3d 209 | 1996-Ohio-92
Submitted September 27, 1995. ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-43.
{¶ 1} In a complaint filed on June 20, 1994, and amended on March 2, 1995, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged respondent, James J. Slattery, Jr. of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0005088, with eight counts of professional misconduct involving, inter alia, violations of DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of entrusted legal matter), and 9-102(A)(2) (failure to deposit client funds in identifiable bank account), as well as
{¶ 2} With respect to Count I of the complaint, as amended, the parties stipulated that respondent failed to comply with continuing legal education requirements, in violation of
{¶ 3} With respect to Count II, the parties stipulated that respondent neglected his representation of Shirley Clauss in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3). Clauss paid respondent $1,000 in October 1993 to obtain a divorce from her
{¶ 4} With respect to Count III, respondent acknowledged that he had violated DR 9-102(A)(2) by failing to deposit Clauss‘s funds into an IOLTA account that complied with the requirements of
{¶ 5} With respect to Count IV, the parties stipulated that respondent neglected his representation of Sandra and Leroy Willman in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3). The Willmаns retained respondent on a contingency fee basis to represent them in a personal injury claim against the Hamilton County Sheriff‘s Department, which is apparently still pending, and a consumer dispute over the рurchase of a conversion van, which was arbitrated to a decision against the Willmans. The Willmans also had difficulty learning the status of their cases from respondent and filed a grievance with relator. Respondent agreed to turn over their file to new counsel; however, the Willmans subsequently reconsidered their reasons for his discharge. Prior to issuance of the instant complaint, the Willmans retained respondent to represent thеm in yet a third civil dispute, which was resolved in their favor.
{¶ 6} With respect to Count V, the parties stipulated to respondent‘s alcoholism and that this condition had contributed to his neglect of clients, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6). Respondent admitted that he had been battling alcoholism at least since 1993, when he received some treatment, but had
{¶ 7} No evidence was submitted to prove Count VI of the complaint, as amended.
{¶ 8} With respect to Count VII, the parties stipulated that respondent neglected his representation of William Hobbs in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3). Hobbs retained respondent to represent him in an action for injuries he sustained in the parking lot of a lounge, where he had either passed out or been assaulted and had also been run over by one of his co-workers. Respondent filed the suit against the lounge and the co-worker, but learned that the lounge was uninsured, that its corporate charter had beеn revoked and the lounge owners were judgment proof, and that the co-worker could not be located for service of process, making the likelihood of recovery remote. After respondent advised Hobbs of these developments, Hobbs moved without leaving respondent his new address. Respondent subsequently appeared before the trial court on a number of occasions
{¶ 9} With respect to Count VIII, the parties stipulated that respondent neglected his representation of Michael J. Younger in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3). Resрondent agreed to represent Younger on a contingency-fee basis in a lender liability claim against a bank for failure to execute a previously approved loan to purchase certain businеss property from the city of Cincinnati. Respondent also agreed to represent Younger on a contingency-fee basis in an action against the city of Cincinnati for the sale of the business property when Younger‘s other attorneys withdrew from the action. Respondent attempted to diligently represent Younger in both matters and to defend him in others and had some success. However, in February 1994, respondent failed to respоnd timely to discovery requests, and he subsequently failed to comply with a court-ordered deadline to produce the discovery. Respondent escaped the imposition of sanctions by supplying some of the requested materials at the hearing on the motion for sanctions; however, the court later determined that he had not fully responded to the order compelling discovery, and it dismissed Younger‘s case with prejudice.
{¶ 10} From the stipulations and respondent‘s testimony at the hearing, the panel determined that he had violated each of the cited Disciplinary Rules, as well as
“a) Respondent is to provide proоf of the establishment and maintenance of an attorney‘s trust (I.O.L.T.A.) account for the holding of client funds.
“b) Respondent shall satisfactorily complete all necessary continuing legal education requirements and be currently registered;
“c) Respondent shall abstain from the use of alcohol and shall be subject to random testing for alcohol consumption by a physician, or other medical personnel, as selected by, and reporting to, Relator, in order to verify compliance with this requirement;
“d) Respondent shall regularly attend after care or other alcohol counseling sessions, as set forth in the Prospect House program; shаll attend meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, if so directed; and shall become involved with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program;
“e) Respondent‘s practice of law shall be monitored by an attorney selected by the Cincinnati Bar Association, upon such terms and conditions as may be appropriate;
“f) If Respondent should fail to comply with any of the conditions of probation, probation shall cease and the balance of the suspension shall become effective.”
{¶ 11} The board adopted the panel‘s report, including its findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation.
Peter J. Rosenwald and James J. Condit, for relator.
James H. Coogan, for respondent.
{¶ 12} Upon review of the record, we conсur in the board‘s findings that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3) and 9-102(A)(2), as well as
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.
COOK, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.