Opinion
No. 93-215
Submitted April 20, 1993 —
Decided June 9, 1993
ON CERTIFIED ORDER of the Supreme Court of Hawaii, Nos. ODC 89-104-2628, 89-115-2639, 89-116-2640, 89-125-2649, 89-131-2655, 89-134-2658, 89-137-2661, 89-157-2681, 89-221-2745 and 89-250-2774.
Respondent, Jonathan Michael Jackson, also known as Gary Michael Jackson of Bowling Green, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0038349, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio on May 11, 1981, and was also licensed to practice law in Hawaii. On December 29, 1992, the Supreme Court of Hawaii, considered a Disciplinary Board's Report and Recommendation and a Hearing Committee's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation. That report found that respondent had neglected entrusted legal matters for ten separate clients in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) of Hawaii's Code of Professional Responsibility. Additionally, respondent had failed nine times to seek the objectives of clients and carry out contracts of employment in violation of DR 7-101(A)(1) and 7-101(A)(2). Respondent had also violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), DR 2-102(A) (false or deceptive letterhead or listing); DR 7-106(C)(7) (intentional or habitual violation of rule of procedure or evidence); DR 9-102(A) (not depositing client funds in identifiable bank account) and 9-102(B)(3) and (4) (failing to maintain account records and promptly pay client funds). Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Hawaii for two years and ordered to make immediate restitution in the total sum of $1,872 to five former clients.
Pursuant to the reciprocal discipline provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F), relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a certified copy of the order of the Supreme Court of Hawaii with the Clerk of this court. After being served with a show cause order, respondent asserted that the events complained of took place in 1988 and 1989 because of the failure of his associates to follow through with case files. Respondent also asserted that reciprocal discipline would cause a hardship on his many clients in Ohio.
J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Harald F. Craig III, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Jonathan M. Jackson, pro se.
Respondent has failed to show why he should not receive discipline comparable to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Hawaii. The findings approved by the Supreme Court of Hawaii clearly demonstrate respondent's personal responsibility for extended neglect of his clients as well as his other disciplinary violations. Accordingly, we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for the duration of his Hawaii suspension. However, before respondent will be reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio, he must present evidence that he has made the restitution ordered by the Supreme Court of Hawaii. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.