The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 77 Ohio St.3d 71.]
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. CHRISTENSEN.
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Christensen, 1996-Ohio-370.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Engaging in conduct that
adversely reflects on fitness to practice law—Failure to comply with
attorney registration requirements—Failure to comply with sanctions
imposed for not meeting continuing legal education requirements—
Failure to cooperate with grievance investigation.
(No. 96-1427—Submitted September 10, 1996—Decided November 6, 1996.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-66.
__________________
{¶ 1} On September 20, 1994, the Toledo Bar Association (“relator”) filed
a complaint charging David C. Christensen of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney Registration
No. 0002576 (“respondent”), in one count with violating DR 3-101(B)(engaging in
the unauthorized practice of law), and in a second count with violating Gov. Bar R.
V(4)(G), DR 1-102(A)(1) and 1-102(A)(6) (failing to cooperate with a grievance
investigation).
{¶ 2} Respondent failed to answer the complaint, and relator moved for a
default judgment. Based on the complaint and affidavits attached to a supplemental
motion for default judgment, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances
and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) found that respondent was admitted
to the practice of law in Ohio in 1955 but is not currently registered to practice law
in Ohio and has not been in good standing since September 1, 1991. In April 1993
the Supreme Court sanctioned respondent for failure to comply with the continuing
legal education requirements for the 1990-1991 reporting period and imposed a
sanction fee which he has not paid. After September 1, 1991 and until March 1993,
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
respondent represented Gretchen A. Good in various legal matters including estate
and tax representation, but, according to the panel, never advised Good that he was
not registered to practice law in Ohio. After Good filed a grievance, relator began
an investigation of Good’s allegations. Although relator advised respondent by
mail of the investigation and asked for his cooperation, respondent failed to
communicate or cooperate with relator.
{¶ 3} In its decision, the panel found that the respondent had been served
with the complaint; that the facts alleged in the complaint were true; and that
respondent not only had failed to cooperate with relator, but had failed to respond
to the complaint or appear at the hearing scheduled thereon. The panel concluded
that respondent had violated DR 3-101(B) (by engaging in the unauthorized
practice of law) and, further, that respondent had violated Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G), DR
1-102(A)(1) and 1-102(A)(6) (because of his failure to cooperate in the relator’s
investigation). The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended
from the practice of law in Ohio.
{¶ 4} The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendation of the panel.
__________________
Deborah K. Rump and Harold M. Steinberg, for relator.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 5} We adopt the findings of fact of the board. Further, we conclude that
respondent has engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) by (1) undertaking the representation of Good
when he had failed to comply with the registration requirements of Gov. Bar R. VI,
(2) failing to comply with the sanctions imposed for not meeting the continuing
legal education requirements of Gov. Bar R. X, and (3) failing to cooperate with
the grievance investigation as required by Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G). Therefore,
2
January Term, 1996
respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed
to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and STRATTON, JJ., concur.
COOK, J., dissents.
DOUGLAS, J., not participating.
__________________
COOK, J., dissenting.
{¶ 6} Respondent’s conduct, in the aggregate, displays a flagrant disregard of this
court’s rules, orders, and grievance procedures, and warrants permanent disbarment from
the practice of law.
__________________
3