Summary
In Dayton Bar Assn. v. Moore (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 11, respondent in three separate instances, failed to pursue legal matters in which he kept a retainer.
Summary of this case from Bar Assn. of Greater Cleveland v. WilsmanOpinion
D.D. No. 82-23
Decided November 24, 1982.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Failure to file and prosecute federal class action lawsuit — Neglect of domestic relations matters.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
The Dayton Bar Association, relator herein, filed a three-count complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (hereinafter "board"), pursuant to Gov. R. V, charging Gaile D. Moore, respondent herein, with violations of the following Disciplinary Rules: DR 6-101(A)(1) (one violation), DR 6-101(A)(3) (three violations) and DR 7-101(A)(2) (two violations).
Relator's complaint charged respondent with failing to advance and protect his clients' interests in three separate legal matters entrusted to him. Count I concerned respondent's failure to file and proceed with a class action in federal court on behalf of employees of the Dayton Press Company. Respondent accepted a retainer in June 1977 notwithstanding that he was not admitted to practice in the federal district court. The complaint was filed in August 1978 after much urging from the clients. The federal court ultimately denied class certification and dismissed the case, after determining that respondent was too inexperienced in class actions to provide adequate representation for his clients.
Count II alleged that respondent neglected a domestic relations case after having accepted a retainer. Specifically, he failed to seek a restraining order sought by his client, a victim of domestic violence, when he filed her divorce complaint. Respondent did not appear at a scheduled meeting with this client, and was otherwise unavailable. The client eventually obtained other counsel to handle her divorce. Respondent never returned the $275 retainer, a $100 subsequent payment, or any part thereof, to the client.
Count III involved respondent's failure to file or proceed with a dissolution of marriage. The clients, husband and wife, retained respondent in July 1981 to dissolve their marriage and paid him $425. Respondent filed no papers, made no effort to contact his clients, and could not be reached by the clients despite their repeated attempts to locate him. The clients retained other counsel who obtained a dissolution in October 1981. The clients did receive a $425 refund from respondent, but respondent's inaction greatly delayed and inconvenienced the clients.
A hearing was held on relator's complaint on May 7, 1982 before a panel of the board. Respondent did not file an answer to the complaint, did not appear at the hearing, and did not have a legal representative present. The record indicates that respondent received timely notice of the complaint and proceedings.
The board heard testimony from witnesses on each count of the complaint and concluded that respondent had violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The board recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Mr. James Weprin, for relator.
After a careful examination and review of the record in this cause, this court concurs with the findings and conclusions of the board that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(1), DR 6-101(A)(3), and DR 7-101(A)(2).
It is the judgment of this court that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and KRUPANSKY, JJ., concur.