The opinion
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.
Richland County Bar Association v. Davis.
[Cite as Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Davis (1994), Ohio
St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Two-year suspension with one
year suspended with conditions -- Neglect of entrusted
legal matters.
(No. 94-965 -- Submitted June 15, 1994 -- Decided August
31, 1994.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 93-31.
On August 12, 1993, relator, Richland County Bar
Association, filed an amended complaint alleging misconduct
against respondent, Rees Davis of Mansfield, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0024415. Respondent was previously publicly
reprimanded on February 20, 1991 by the Supreme Court of Ohio
in case No. 90-1859 for violating DR 9-102(B)(4) (failure to
promptly deliver to the client as requested by the client funds
in the possession of the lawyer to which client is entitled).
Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Davis (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 196, 566
N.E.2d 678.
Both counts alleged a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect
of legal matter entrusted). Count I involved respondent's
failure to respond, in any manner, as retained counsel in an
employment case to the opposition's motion for summary
judgment. Count II stemmed from respondent's failure to
complete the steps necessary to incorporate a client's business
venture. Respondent stipulated to having committed the alleged
violations and to the facts underlying them.
These charges were heard by a panel of the Board of
Commisisoners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
("board") on March 18, 1994. Respondent, an admitted alcoholic
now in recovery, accepted full responsibility for his behavior,
and while attributing his acts to his drinking, acknowledged
that it was not a defense. Respondent testified that he had
been sober since January 27, 1993, and outlined the
multi-faceted recovery program in which he was engaged,
including regular attendance at AA meetings. Respondent
testified that he was "absolutely" dedicated to remaining sober
and helping clients in any way he could.
In addition to several character letters on respondent's
behalf, four mitigation witnesses offered testimony. William
X. Haase, Director of the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program,
stated that respondent took the initiative in contacting him in
the spring of 1993 to inquire into long-term alcohol recovery
programs. Haase also attested to respondent's compliance with
all program requirements since that time.
Judge James D. Henson and attorney James J. O'Donnell,
both of Mansfield, verified respondent's sobriety since January
1993, and characterized respondent as having excellent legal
skills and possessing high honesty and integrity when
alcohol-free. Finally, Mansfield attorney, Russell Joshua
Brown, himself a recovered alcoholic, evinced his willingness
to serve as a local monitor for respondent.
The panel found a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) as to both
counts. It recommended a two-year suspension of respondent
from the practice of law with one year suspended, subject to
certain conditions. The board adopted the findings of fact,
conclusions and, with one conditional exception, the
recommendation of the panel. Accordingly, the board
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of
law in Ohio for two years with one year suspended on the
following conditions: that during the ensuing two years, he (1)
continue contact with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, Inc.
and follow its recommendations; (2) continue appropriate and
successful monitoring by Russell Joshua Brown, including
periodic random urinalysis; (3) attend faithfully all
recommended after-care programs as deemed appropriate by the
Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, Inc.; (4) pay restitution to
clients as determined by a court of law; (5) maintain all
continuing legal education requirements; and (6) consume no
alcohol. The board also recommended that the costs of the
proceeding be charged to respondent.
Donald R. Teffner, for relator.
Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.
Per Curiam. We concur in the findings and recommendation
of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice
of law in Ohio for two years with one year suspended on the
conditions set forth by the board. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and
F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents and would order a six-month
suspension, stayed on conditions.