Summary
In Disciplinary Counsel v. Sigall (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 15, 17, 14 OBR 320, 321, 470 N.E.2d 886, 888, we found that such a practice was "tantamount to theft of that fee from the client."
Summary of this case from Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. LieserOpinion
D.D. No. 84-10
Decided November 7, 1984.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension — Neglect of clients' legal matters.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
On April 12, 1984, a hearing was held before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline relative to a complaint filed against respondent, Herschel M. Sigall. Respondent is alleged to have committed multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) and (6); DR 2-106(A) and (B); DR 2-110(A)(3); DR 6-101(A)(2) and (3); and DR 7-101(A)(1), (2) and (3).
These allegations stem from activities which the respondent had undertaken for three separate clients. The first of the alleged violations concerned respondent's representation of clients in an oral agreement to purchase land. Respondent's associate partner was hired by Paul D. and Maude Brookins, to pursue their case. After the complaint was filed by respondent's associate, the associate became disabled. Respondent assumed the complete representation of the Brookinses, in January 1980. The trial had been set for December 18, 1979. Neither the respondent nor his associate appeared for the trial. The matter was continued at that time until April 17, 1980. Respondent again failed to appear at the April trial date and the case was later dismissed pursuant to a motion filed April 24, 1980, by defendant's counsel.
The respondent and defendant's counsel subsequently engaged in settlement negotiations which culminated in an agreement. The settlement provided that the Brookinses would receive .47 acres of land from the defendants and, in addition, an easement containing a leach bed and septic system on other property. The Brookinses were also required to pay an additional $500 under the settlement for this conveyance of land. Under the original oral agreement defendant agreed to convey one acre of land for $500 which had previously been paid by respondent's clients.
Respondent never discussed this settlement with his clients. They were not even aware of the $500 payment because the respondent made it himself and never reported the terms of the agreement to his clients. The Brookinses subsequently accepted the settlement although they were not totally satisfied.
The second violation alleged against respondent involved his mishandling of incorporation papers which he was retained to draft and file by a client, Rocco D. Sabatino, in early 1979. The papers were prepared by respondent but evidently were never filed with the Secretary of State. Respondent's client was under the impression that all of the filings had been properly made and that he was operating a corporation pursuant to the laws of Ohio.
In late 1979, Sabatino paid respondent $300 to reincorporate his business in a different name. These papers were never delivered nor filed with the Secretary of State. Nearly five months later, Sabatino was compelled to retain other counsel to complete the requested incorporation. Relator never refunded any of the $300 paid by Sabatino. The board found that respondent not only failed to prepare properly and file incorporation papers for Sabatino but also neglected to respond to any of Sabatino's inquiries.
The third violation alleged against respondent involved a $250 fee paid by George M. Mudrich to respondent in 1978, to represent Mudrich in a claim of discrimination by his employer.
The board did not find by a necessary preponderance of the evidence a clear understanding of the scope of the representation envisioned by respondent and his client in the discrimination case. Respondent contends that he was merely hired to do some research on the case by Mudrich. The board did, however, find that respondent totally failed to communicate with his client the results of any such research. It is also clear that the client during a period of three years or more attempted on many occasions to contact the respondent. Respondent was unable to produce any work product concerning the discrimination case.
It was the finding of the board that respondent showed a continued neglect in legal matters entrusted to him and, in particular, had violated DR 1-102(A)(6), DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 6-102, and DR 7-101(A)(2). The board recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio.
DR 1-102 reads in part:
"(A) A lawyer shall not:
"* * *
"(6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."
DR 6-101 reads in part:
"(A) A lawyer shall not:
"* * *
"(3) Neglect a legal matter entrusted to him."
DR 6-102 reads:
"(A) A lawyer shall not attempt to exonerate himself from or limit his liability to his client for his personal malpractice."
DR 7-101 reads in part:
"(A) A lawyer shall not intentionally:
"* * *
"(2) Fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services * * *."
Mr. Angelo J. Gagliardo, disciplinary counsel, and Mr. Mark H. Aultman, for relator.
Mr. Peter F.J. Beagle, for respondent.
All of the incidents involved in this disciplinary action show a continuing pattern of neglect on the part of respondent. When an attorney enters into an attorney-client relationship he must be diligent in the performance of the services for which he has been retained. A failure on the part of an attorney to do the work for which a client has paid him a fee is tantamount to theft of that fee from the client.
When faced with similar cases in the past this court has suspended attorneys for periods of from one year to an indefinite period for neglect of duty in legal matters entrusted to them. See Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Renshaw (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 192 [3 O.O.3d 250], and Columbus Bar Assn. v. Dickinson (1962), 173 Ohio St. 291 [19 O.O.2d 193].
This court finds that respondent did violate DR 1-102(A)(6), DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 6-102, and DR 7-101(A)(2). Respondent's almost cavalier disregard of matters entrusted to him by his clients not only reflects adversely on him but also on the entire legal profession. Conduct such as respondent's requires more than a mere public reprimand, which he encourages the court to impose upon him.
It is the judgment of this court that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio for a period of one year.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.