From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stanley

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 21, 1990
552 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio 1990)

Opinion

No. 89-1558

Submitted December 13, 1989 —

Decided March 21, 1990.

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Suspended six-month suspension — Failing to carry out a contract of employment — Failing to return funds and papers to client — Neglecting to assist in grievance committee investigation.

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 88-53.

By a complaint filed on October 27, 1988, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, charged respondent, Christopher D. Stanley, with four counts of misconduct involving violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract for employment), 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay or deliver funds to which a client is entitled), 2-110(A)(2) (failing to deliver to a client the papers and property to which he is entitled), 2-110(A)(3) (failing to promptly refund any unearned fee), Gov. Bar R. V(5)(a) (neglecting or refusing to assist in a Certified Grievance Committee investigation), and Gov. Bar R. VI(1) and (7) (failing to register). Respondent answered the complaint on April 25, 1989. The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court on April 28, 1989.

At the hearing, the parties submitted stipulations and evidence regarding the alleged misconduct. With respect to Count One, the record substantiates that Patrick Gerrasch retained respondent in December 1986 to represent him in expungement proceedings, and that Gerrasch paid respondent $300 in attorney fees and $50 in court fees. Thereafter, respondent experienced personal problems and decided to withdraw, apparently without pursuing the matter. However, respondent did not advise Gerrasch of his decision, and he did not return any of Gerrasch's money.

With respect to Count Two, the record shows that Janet Warren engaged respondent in 1985 to represent her in a domestic relations matter. Warren paid respondent approximately $60 as a partial retainer. However, respondent did not pursue this matter either, and he did not return Warren's telephone calls or the papers she gave him.

With respect to Counts Three and Four, the record substantiates that respondent failed to cooperate in relator's investigation of the alleged misconduct, and that respondent failed to register as an attorney for the 1987-1989 biennium.

Based on the foregoing, the panel found violations of DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and Gov. Bar R. V(5)(a). The panel also found that respondent had violated the registration requirement, but it noted that the matter had been resolved before the hearing.

Before making its recommendation, the panel considered respondent's testimony about the personal problems he had when Gerrasch retained him and the counseling these problems made necessary. The panel also considered the many favorable reports on respondent's character and professional competence that were submitted on his behalf. However, the panel recommended that respondent be suspended for six months and that he thereafter be placed on a two-year probation during which his professional activities would be monitored. The board adopted the panel's findings and its recommendation.

Donald Cybulski, Robert N. Rapp and James S. Carnes, for relator.

Christopher D. Stanley, pro se.


Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree that respondent committed the misconduct found by the board. However, we find the board's recommendation inappropriate. Accordingly, we order that respondent be placed on a six-month suspension, but that this sanction be suspended on the condition that he satisfactorily serve a two-year monitored probation period. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, WRIGHT and RESNICK, JJ., concur.

HOLMES, J., dissents.

DOUGLAS and H. BROWN, JJ., dissent without opinion.


I concur with the findings and recommendations adopted by the board of commissioners below, and thus I would not suspend respondent's six-month suspension. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.


Summaries of

Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stanley

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 21, 1990
552 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio 1990)
Case details for

Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stanley

Case Details

Full title:CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. STANLEY

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Mar 21, 1990

Citations

552 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio 1990)
552 N.E.2d 201

Citing Cases

Disciplinary Counsel v. Stanley

Evidence submitted in support of the motion for default established with respect to Count I that respondent…