Opinion
No. 93-453
Submitted April 20, 1993 —
Decided August 11, 1993.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 92-7.
In a complaint filed February 19, 1992, relator, Northwest Ohio Bar Association, charged that respondent, Stephen R. Archer of Defiance, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0031376, had violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law); 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him); and 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client).
The evidence reveals that respondent met with Joyce Greenhagan, f.k.a. Joyce Smith, in April 1989 to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. Greenhagan paid respondent $490 to file the action. Greenhagan stated she called respondent at least two times per week from April to October to determine the status of her case. During that time she spoke with respondent once. Finally, in October she met with respondent. Respondent testified that he recommended to her that she should file a Chapter 13 petition rather than a Chapter 7 petition.
Greenhagen did not hear from respondent until April 1990, when he told her he was "getting [the bankruptcy petition] together." They met again in July 1990, and the petition still was not filed.
In November 1990, Greenhagen met with respondent and told him that instead of the bankruptcy petition she wanted to file for trusteeship. Respondent filed for trusteeship on January 24, 1991.
Greenhagen testified that the twenty-one-month delay resulted in harassment by creditors, and the payment of substantial sums of interest she would not have had to pay had the petition been filed on time.
On April 11, 1991, after this complaint was filed, respondent refunded $205 to Greenhagen. Greenhagen gave respondent a letter stating that she would not pursue the complaint. She implied that this letter was a quid quo pro for the refund. Respondent stated that it was unrelated. The panel recommended a public reprimand. The board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the panel and found respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him.
Barber, Kaper, Stamm Robinson and Jeffrey L Robinson, for relator.
Stephen R. Archer, pro se.
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the board and publicly reprimand respondent. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.