The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 73 Ohio St.3d 738.]
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. FREI.
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Frei, 1995-Ohio-254.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Public reprimand—Neglect of an entrusted legal
matter.
(No. 94-2251—Submitted July 26, 1995—Decided October 11, 1995.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 93-80.
__________________
{¶ 1} In a complaint filed on December 6, 1993, relator, Toledo Bar
Association, charged respondent, Susan E. Frei of Lakewood, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0042214, with professional misconduct involving violations of,
inter alia, DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal matter) and Gov.Bar R.
V(4)(G) (failure to cooperate in investigation of misconduct). Initially, the Board
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”)
recommended, on the basis of its panel’s report, that relator’s motion for default be
granted and that respondent receive an indefinite suspension from the practice of
law. We remanded the matter to assure that respondent received sufficient notice
of relator’s charges, see 71 Ohio St.3d 1470, 645 N.E.2d 734, and a board panel
reviewed the matter pursuant to our order.
{¶ 2} The panel determined that respondent had no actual notice of the
disciplinary proceedings against her, and it accepted respondent’s stipulation to
having violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and relator’s dismissal of the other charges.
{¶ 3} Respondent stipulated to neglect because she relocated her practice in
1992 and lost contact with a bankruptcy client for whom she had not completed
promised work. Respondent returned the client’s case file and $420 payment for
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
fees and filing costs when she learned of relator’s complaint. Respondent also
indicated her sincere remorse for having neglected the client’s case.
{¶ 4} The panel recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand,
and the board adopted the panel’s finding of misconduct and its recommendation.
__________________
James E. Goranson, for relator.
Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 5} Upon review of the record, we agree with the board’s finding of
misconduct and recommended sanction. Susan E. Frei is hereby publicly
reprimanded for having violated DR 6-101(A)(3). Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
__________________
2