Opinion
No. 89-2165
Submitted February 13, 1990 —
Decided April 11, 1990.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Solicitation of clients while suspended from the practice of law — Neglecting an entrusted legal matter.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 88-49.
In a complaint filed on October 27, 1988, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, charged respondent, Leon S. Heard, with six counts of misconduct involving violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), 2-101(A) (using or participating in the use of any form of communication containing a false, fraudulent, misleading or deceptive statement or claim), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), and 9-102(B)(3) (failing to maintain complete records of and to appropriately account for client's funds in attorney's possession). The complaint further charged that respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year on March 27, 1985 due to similar misconduct (see Disciplinary Counsel v. Heard, 16 Ohio St.3d 18, 16 OBR 369, 475 N.E.2d 784), and that he has not applied for readmission to the Ohio Bar since that time. When respondent did not answer the complaint after service was made, relator filed a motion for default pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V(13)(B). The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court on October 10, 1989. Although respondent was also served notice of this proceeding, he did not appear.
With respect to Counts One and Two, the record substantiates that in 1987, respondent, either directly or indirectly through an organization designed for this purpose, mailed letters indicating the availability of his services to two individuals who were listed in The Daily Legal News as facing mortgage foreclosure. Both letters promised that respondent could "stop" the impending foreclosures. The recipients of these letters had not requested respondent's counsel beforehand, and one of them was already represented in a bankruptcy proceeding. Moreover, due to the order of March 27, 1985 and respondent's failure to subsequently apply for readmission, respondent's license to practice law was under suspension at this time, as well as all other times relevant to the complaint.
With respect to Count Three, the record substantiates that in the summer of 1985, Robert Rose was referred to respondent after paying a $700 retainer to Tolbert Enterprises, a company that offered assistance to people involved in foreclosure actions. Respondent apparently agreed to represent Rose in bankruptcy proceedings in an effort to prevent foreclosure on his property. However, respondent did not file the necessary petition until December 16, 1985, several months after Rose's property was sold at a sheriff's sale. Rose has since sued respondent for malpractice and has been awarded $40,000 in damages.
With respect to Counts Four, Five, and Six, the record substantiates that three individuals paid respondent various sums of money for services that he failed to provide. Specifically, in January 1986, Charles Range paid respondent $135 to file an eviction action. Despite Range's inquiries, respondent neither filed the suit nor accounted to Range for the fees paid him. In July or August 1985, DeNise Foster paid respondent $260 to file a bankruptcy petition on her behalf. Respondent failed to file the petition and also refused to account for Foster's money. In September 1986, Asther Warner apparently received a letter from Tolbert Enterprises offering assistance in a foreclosure action involving Warner's home. After being referred to respondent, Warner paid him $200 to file a bankruptcy action. Again, respondent did not file the petition and also refused to account for Warner's money.
Based on the foregoing, the panel granted the motion for default and found violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), 2-101(A), 6-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(3). It also found that respondent had virtually ignored the suspension imposed on and after March 27, 1985. Due to the gravity of this misconduct, the panel recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred. The board adopted the panel's findings and its recommendation.
Meyers, Hentemann, Schneider Rea Co., L.P.A., John S. Rea, Edward J. Maher, Seymour R. Brown and Mary L. Cibella, for relator.
We agree that respondent violated the Disciplinary Rules cited by the board. Because we consider disbarment the only appropriate sanction for such severe misconduct, we also agree with the board's recommendation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.