Opinion
No. 91-2500
Submitted March 17, 1992 —
Decided June 17, 1992.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 90-64.
On December 17, 1990, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, relator, filed an eleven-count complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") against Geoffrey L. Oglesby, respondent. Respondent timely responded to the first three counts of the complaint but neglected, until the day before the hearing before a panel of the board, to respond to the remaining counts. At the hearing, held on May 24, 1991, the panel ruled that respondent had not timely filed an answer to counts four through eleven, and the panel granted relator's motion for default on those counts. Consequently, the panel received direct evidence on only the first three counts and mitigation evidence on all eleven counts.
Under Count one, respondent agreed to represent Ivor Hicks in a personal bankruptcy matter. Respondent did not answer when the bank holding the mortgage to Hick's residence filed a motion for relief from stay, thus causing the motion to be granted, and the bank was permitted to proceed with its foreclosure action. Consequently, the bank forced a sheriff's sale of the residence.
Hicks subsequently filed a malpractice action against respondent, who agreed to pay Hicks $6,000 in settlement. The parties dispute whether they negotiated a further compromise and how much money respondent actually paid Hicks. In any event, respondent admits that his practice was chaotic and that the Hicks case "slipped between the cracks." In mitigation, respondent bid, though unsuccessfully, on Hick's house to restore it to him.
The panel found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter) and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law).
Under Count two, the panel found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3). According to the evidence, respondent assumed representation of Mr. and Mrs. Ernst from another attorney employed by respondent. The employee had negotiated a settlement of the case prior to leaving respondent's employ. However, respondent neglected to collect the money due the Ernsts, and the money apparently was received by the Ernsts' in their later filed bankruptcy case.
In Count three, the panel found that relator's evidence did not establish a violation of the Disciplinary Rules. The board adopted the panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law as to Counts one, two and three.
The board's findings on the defaulted counts follow:
Count four — violations of DR 9-102(A) (failure to place entrusted money in a trust account) and 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 1-102(A)(6), were found. Respondent failed to deposit entrusted funds in a trust account and, despite a court order, failed to pay these funds to plaintiff's counsel until nearly a year after a court order to do so.
Count five — violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(6) were found. The court entered a default judgment against respondent's client for $2,700 because respondent failed to answer plaintiff's interrogatories.
Count six — a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) was found. A court dismissed a civil matter for want of prosecution by respondent on the client's behalf.
Count seven was dismissed.
Count eight — a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) was found. A court apparently dismissed a civil action for want of prosecution by respondent on the client's behalf, as in Count six.
Count nine — a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) was found. Respondent assumed representation of J.C. Cody, a plaintiff, in a lawsuit commencing on March 10, 1988, but neglected the case, filing only a request for trial on May 3, 1989.
Count ten — violations of DR 9-102(A) (failing to maintain a positive balance in a trust account) and 1-102(A)(6) were found. Respondent paid rent and phone bills from his trust account and had overdrawn it on one hundred ten occasions while it was open.
Count eleven was dismissed.
The board recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for one year, staying six months of that suspension if respondent: (1) within the first six months of his suspension, restores the sum of $3,700 found by the panel to be due by respondent as a result of his misconduct, (2) within the first six months of his suspension, completes all continuing legal education requirements, including at least four hours of education on professional practice management and administration, and (3) completes two years of monitored probation after serving the suspension.
J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna L. Chesley, for relator.
Geoffrey L. Oglesby, pro se.
After reviewing the record, we agree with the board's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation.
Accordingly, we suspend Geoffrey L. Oglesby from the practice of law for one year, and stay six months of the suspension on the conditions set forth by the board above, except the amount of restitution may be amended if respondent establishes another, appropriate amount. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.