DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. EUNICE A. CLAVNER.
No. 96-1995
Supreme Court of Ohio
February 19, 1997
77 Ohio St.3d 431 | 1997-Ohio-251
Submitted October 16, 1996. ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-92.
{¶ 1} On November 24, 1995, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, relator, charged Eunice A. Clavner of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0036747, respondent, with violations of DR 6-102(A) (attempting to exonerate herself from or limit her liability to her client for her personal malрractice), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduсt that adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law). The matter was heard before а panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“bоard“), on May 10, 1996.
{¶ 2} According to the testimony adduced at the hearing, a default judgment was entered against respondent‘s clients, Peter Quinn and Connie Rudolph (“clients“), after respondent failed to apрear for a trial date on November 1, 1994. [Exhibit 14, R. 82] A scheduling error in her office led respondent to believe the trial date to be November 3, 1994. When the clients arrived in respondent‘s office on Novembеr 2, 1994 to discuss the following day‘s trial, respondent informed them of the default judgment. Respondent said that the judgmеnt might be set aside, but if it was not, respondent would pay for damages, including court costs. On that day respondent and the clients entered into a “release” which provided that respondent would pay “[t]he judgment amount in its entirety including court costs
{¶ 3} The panel found that respondent should not have obtained a release from thе clients without first informing them that they were in an adversarial relationship with her and advising them that they had a right tо consult independent counsel before agreeing to the release. The panel found that in negotiating the release and dealing directly with her clients, who on this issue were adverse to her, respondent violated DR 6-102. The board adopted the panel‘s findings of fact and conclusions of lаw and recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded.
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Alvin E. Mathews, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Mary L Cibella for respondent.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 4} DR 6-102(A) provides that, “[a] lawyer shall nоt attempt to exonerate himself from or limit his liability to his client for his personal malpracticе.” We do not read this rule so as to prohibit an attorney from ever raising a defense against or аttempting to settle a malpractice action. However, this rule places an attornеy on notice that when a client has a potential cause of action for malpraсtice, the attorney and the client are adversaries. Because the attorney-client rеlationship
{¶ 5} Whatever may havе been the intentions of respondent, however little, if any, damage resulted to her clients, and regаrdless of whether her clients had a cause of action for malpractice, respondent should have been aware that when she began negotiations with her clients for a release of any potential claims against her, she was in an adversarial relationship with them. She should have informed her clients of this adversarial relationship and their right to independent counsel before they signed the release. No good intentions on the part of respondent to spare her cliеnts harm and no careful explanation of the terms of the release can excuse the violation of DR-6-102(A).
{¶ 6} We adopt the board‘s findings and recommendation and hereby reprimand the respondent publicly. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.