CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. REA.
No. 96-1433
Supreme Court of Ohio
March 26, 1997
78 Ohio St.3d 71 | 1997-Ohio-235
[This оpinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 78 Ohio St.3d 71.]
(No. 96-1433—Submitted January 7, 1997—Dеcided March 26, 1997.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-73.
{¶ 1} On Octobеr 17, 1994, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a complaint charging respondent, Rebecca A. Rea of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0037283, in six counts with violating several Disciplinary Rules. After attempts to serve respondent at three different addresses failed, relator made service on the Clerk of the Supreme Court in conformity with
{¶ 2} Based upon the undisputed allegations of relator‘s complaint, a panel of the Board of Commissiоners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board“) found that on March 31, 1993, Clark Patterson paid rеspondent a retainer of $2,000 to represent his grandson, Stephen Hill, in a criminal case which was scheduled for final pretrial on May 21, 1993, and trial three days later. Respondent falsely told Patterson that she had notified prior counsel, entered her appearance in the case, and obtained a four-week extension of pretrial and trial when, in fact, respondent had done none of these things. On May 24, 1994, Patterson (and Hill)
{¶ 3} The panel further found that on September 14, 1992, Annie Gwinn retained respondent and paid respondent $3,050 to rеpresent her son in a driving under the influence case. Respondent falsely told Gwinn that the case had been continued and that Gwinn‘s son would not have to appear in court. In fact, the case was not continued, and а warrant was issued for the son‘s arrest. Respondent did not reply when Gwinn asked for an accounting and a return of unеarned fees.
{¶ 4} The panel further found that after respondent was appointed to represent Autumn Mitchell Perkins in a criminal case, Perkins also hired respondent to represent her in a personal injury case. Rеspondent settled the personal injury matter while Perkins was incarcerated. Despite Perkins‘s instruction to send thе balance of the personal injury settlement to her mother after deducting legal fees, respondent fаiled to turn over the balance to either Perkins or her mother.
{¶ 5} The panel also found that respondent failed to return a file to Raymond Seawright after Seawright dismissed her as his attorney; failed to return a retainer of $5,000 рaid to her on March 22, 1993, by Robyn L. Demmings after Demmings dismissed respondent as her attorney on March 23, 1994; failed to timely file а motion for shock probation on behalf of her client Gary Russell; and failed to respond to written and oral requests from the relator with respect to the allegations of these clients.
{¶ 6} As a result, the panel concluded that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deсeit, or misrepresentation), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to turn over the funds, security, or other property in possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive). The panel recommended that the respondent be
Robert Marcis and James S. Aussem, for relator.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 7} In all six of the counts in this case, respondent neglected legal matters entrusted tо her. In four of the counts, respondent obtained retainers which she did not earn or return. With respect to two сounts, respondent lied to her clients.
{¶ 8} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Palmer (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 174, 642 N.E.2d 1087, when an attorney lied to clients and neglected their interests, we ordеred an indefinite suspension. We also found an indefinite suspension appropriate in Disciplinary Counsel v. Chavers (1990) 55 Ohio St.3d 18, 562 N.E.2d 1386, where an attorney accepted numerous retainers, failed to perform the work requested, failed to return the unearnеd fees, and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation. In both Palmer and Chavers the respondents failed to аnswer the complaints against them and our sanction was based on relators’ motions for default judgment.
{¶ 9} Here rеspondent has failed to answer and relator has moved for a default judgment. Here also, given the facts as alleged and undisputed, we find the appropriate sanction to be indefinite suspension from the praсtice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur.
PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.
COOK, J., dissents.
COOK, J., dissenting.
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.
{¶ 11} The evidence dоes not clearly establish that respondent received adequate notice of all the stages of the proceedings, particularly in light of her hospitalization and illnesses. I would remand and give the respondent an opportunity to appear and respond. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the majority‘s opinion.
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.