Opinion
No. D.D. 87-33
Submitted April 6, 1988 —
Decided September 7, 1988.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Convictions of drug abuse — Neglect of legal matters.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar, No. 4-87-B.
On March 30, 1987, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint alleging six counts of misconduct against respondent, Terrence Conrad Jones. On September 11, 1987, the parties submitted agreed stipulations and accompanying exhibits. Respondent stipulated to all of the complaint's allegations, except for the charges under Count IV which relator agreed to dismiss. Respondent also stipulated that indefinite suspension from the practice of law was an appropriate sanction for his misconduct. The parties waived a hearing in the matter.
Under Counts I and II of the complaint, respondent stipulated to having violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney's fitness to practice law), and 1-102(A)(1) (violating a Disciplinary Rule). The facts supporting this count included that, on February 24, 1984, respondent was indicted by the Lucas County Grand Jury on four counts of felony drug offenses and was later arrested and incarcerated for failing to appear at his trial. On January 19, 1985, respondent was found guilty in the court of common pleas on two counts of drug abuse. As a result, on March 20, 1985, respondent was given an automatic indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V(8)(iii) (now, Gov. Bar R. V[9][a][iii]). Thereafter, respondent was found in contempt of this court for failing to surrender his certificate of admission. Accordingly, the board found that respondent had committed each of the disciplinary violations charged.
Count III charged that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(6) by virtue of the continuing pattern of criminal conduct demonstrated by his prior conviction record. Respondent stipulated to a 1966 Toledo Municipal Court conviction for assaulting and resisting a police officer, a 1973 Toledo Municipal Court conviction for assault and battery, a 1981 Toledo Municipal Court conviction for disorderly conduct, a 1983 Toledo Municipal Court conviction for failing to file and pay his municipal taxes, and the two 1985 convictions in the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County for drug abuse. Accordingly, the board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(6).
In connection with Count V, respondent also stipulated to having violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter) and 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract for professional services). The record reflects that, in 1984, Melvin Stewart paid respondent $150 to represent him in a domestic relations case. Respondent failed to appear at the hearing in the matter and otherwise failed to represent Stewart after their initial conference. Respondent failed to refund Stewart's money as well. The board found that this conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2).
In addition to violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2), Count VI charged respondent with violating DR 2-110(A)(3) (failing to promptly return unearned fees to a client). According to the stipulations, respondent was paid $500 by another client for representation in a paternity action. Respondent did not provide this client any legal services, failed to appear at a hearing in the matter, and failed to refund the client's money. Accordingly, the board found respondent in violation of the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules.
Before making its recommendation, the board considered a variety of correspondence relating to respondent's character, trial skills, and his apparently successful efforts to overcome drug addiction. Some of this correspondence, including a letter from a federal magistrate, described respondent's character and legal ability favorably. However, four letters and an affidavit supplied by judges before whom respondent had appeared, either in his professional capacity or as a defendant, disparaged respondent in these respects. Neither of the two letters written about respondent's former drug abuse established that such abuse should be considered mitigating to any significant degree. Thus, the board recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.
J. Warren Bettis, disciplinary counsel, and Karen B. Hull, for relator.
McConnell, Taylor Tolliver and C. Allan McConnell, for respondent.
This court has thoroughly reviewed the instant record and has found ample support for the board's conclusions. We therefore adopt the board's findings as well as its recommendation. Respondent is hereby ordered suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for an indefinite period to commence on the date of this decision. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.
DOUGLAS, J., not participating.