Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 76 Ohio St.3d 365.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. CROWLEY.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley, 1996-Ohio-391.]

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Two-year suspension with one year stayed on

condition—Dishonesty towards clients—Misconduct prejudicial to the

administration of justice—Misconduct adversely reflecting on fitness to

practice law—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter—Prejudice or damage

to a client—Failure to assist and cooperate in disciplinary investigation—

Late registration as an attorney while continuing to engage in the practice

of law.

(No. 96-918—Submitted June 25, 1996—Decided August 21, 1996.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-71.

__________________

{¶ 1} In a four-count complaint filed on August 7, 1995, relator, Office of

Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent, Michaelle T. Crowley of Bowling

Green, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0006066, with violations of DR 1-

102(A)(4) (misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation);

1-102(A)(5) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); 1-102(A)(6)

(misconduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law); 6-101(A)(3) (neglect

of an entrusted legal matter); 7-101(A)(3) (prejudice or damage to a client);

Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failure to assist and cooperate in disciplinary investigation);

and Gov.Bar R. VI(1) (late registration as an attorney). In her answer, respondent

admitted some facts alleged in the complaint, denied others, and added

explanations.

{¶ 2} On January 25, 1996, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on

Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) held a hearing on the

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

matter. The complaint, answer, stipulations, and evidence established that

respondent was admitted to the Ohio Bar in 1982. From 1982 until 1988, she served

both as an assistant city prosecutor and as Bowling Green’s Chief City Prosecutor.

Since 1988, she has been in the private practice of law in Bowling Green.

{¶ 3} As to Count One, Lawrence and Deanna Appelhans, the parents of

LaDeana Appelhans, retained respondent in April 1990 to represent LaDeana in

connection with a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) arising

from a single-car accident in which LaDeana was injured. In the fall of 1990, after

the DUI charge was resolved, respondent also agreed to represent the Appelhans

family in pursuing a medical malpractice claim against the Wood County Hospital

for alleged misdiagnosis of LaDeana’s injuries.

{¶ 4} Thereafter, respondent repeatedly told the Appelhans family that the

malpractice claim against the hospital was progressing but would take time to

resolve. In fact, respondent never filed a lawsuit or sent a letter of representation

to the hospital concerning this malpractice claim. At times, respondent told the

Appelhans family that she had received hospital settlement offers from three

thousand to twelve thousand dollars, but respondent advised that these offers were

unsatisfactory. In fact, the hospital had made no settlement offers. Respondent

told the Appelhans family that court hearings had been scheduled, and respondent

had them prepare for telephone conferences and meetings with judges. Later,

respondent represented to the Appelhans family that these meetings and

conferences had been postponed. On one occasion, respondent had the Appelhans

family visit her office to assist in preparing a response to interrogatories from

opposing counsel. Respondent took notes and advised she would prepare the

responses. In fact, no interrogatories had been received.

{¶ 5} On March 16, 1995, respondent told Mrs. Appelhans that the

malpractice claim had no merit and should be dropped. After Mrs. Appelhans asked

2

January Term, 1996

to see a copy of the filed complaint, respondent admitted she had never filed the

lawsuit and recommended the family consult other counsel.

{¶ 6} As to Count Two, respondent undertook in September 1990, to

represent the Reverend Stacey Swalley, a missionary, to pursue his claim for

reparations as a crime victim. See R.C. 2743.51 et. seq. Reverend Swalley had

been robbed, assaulted, and injured in May 1990, and had incurred medical and

dental expenses less than $400 as a result. Respondent failed to file the claim by

May 1992, the deadline for that claim specified in R.C. 2743.56(C)(2). As a result

of respondent’s failure, Swalley lost any opportunity for reimbursement of these

expenses. In October 1992, relator sent two certified letters of inquiry to

respondent concerning Swalley’s complaint, but respondent did not reply.

{¶ 7} As to Count III, the city of Rossford appointed respondent in the

summer of 1993 as a special prosecutor to investigate a citizen’s complaint of

criminal damage to property. After her investigation, respondent determined that

criminal prosecution was inappropriate, and that any issues should be resolved in

civil litigation. However, respondent failed to notify the city or the complaining

witnesses of her determination, and failed to return phone calls from a complaining

witness as to the status of the matter. In January and February 1994, relator sent

two certified letters of inquiry to respondent about this matter, but respondent did

not respond to these inquiries.

{¶ 8} As to Count IV, respondent registered as an attorney for the

1991/1993 biennium in February 1992, five months late. Although respondent was

not registered during this five-month period, she engaged in the practice of law.

{¶ 9} The panel found that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4),

1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(3), Gov Bar R. V(4)(G) and

VI(1).

{¶ 10} In mitigation, three witnesses testified on respondent’s behalf as

character witnesses, and respondent presented other mitigating evidence. In March

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

1991, respondent’s mother died; in 1993, she and her husband separated and

dissolved their marriage; and in 1994, she suffered from a ruptured disc requiring

surgery and the extended wearing of a cervical collar brace. Further, she suffered

from serious depression and underwent counseling and treatment.

{¶ 11} In addition, respondent enjoyed an outstanding reputation as a

conscientious and trusted city prosecutor. When she left office, she practiced in

domestic relations, real estate, and criminal law, but she had virtually no personal

injury practice. Respondent possessed a strong work ethic, had exceptional legal

abilities, and was regarded as honest and highly professional.

{¶ 12} Respondent testified that $15,000 had been transferred to LaDeana

Appelhans’s new attorney to settle LaDeana’s claim against respondent.

Respondent had also given her attorney $400 in trust for Reverend Swalley, whose

present whereabouts are unknown. The board noted by way of mitigation that

respondent readily admitted her misconduct and offered no excuse. Respondent

understood that a period of suspension was required, had stopped taking new

clients, and was in the process of winding down her practice at the time of the

panel’s hearing.

{¶ 13} Relator recommended an indefinite suspension, and counsel for

respondent recommended a six-month suspension. The panel recommended a two-

year suspension, with one year stayed on condition that respondent continue

treatment for her depression and provide proof of that treatment or a medical

statement that treatment was no longer necessary. The board adopted the panel’s

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation.

__________________

Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant

Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Mark H. Aultman, for respondent.

__________________

4

January Term, 1996

Per Curiam.

{¶ 14} Having reviewed the record, we concur in the board’s findings and

its recommendation. Respondent engaged in a course of dishonesty toward her

clients, the Appelhans family, beginning with neglect and a lie, and continuing with

lengthy inaction and elaborate deception to cover the lie, that we find particularly

distasteful and damaging to the legal profession. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v.

Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237; Toledo Bar Assn. v.

Dzienny (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 173, 648 N.E. 2d 499.

{¶ 15} Therefore, we find it necessary to suspend respondent from the

practice of law. “Dishonesty toward a client, whose interests are the attorney’s duty

to protect, is reprehensible.” Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Speros (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d

101, 104, 652 N.E. 2d 681, 683. In view of respondent’s mitigating evidence, we

concur in the board’s recommendation of a limited suspension. Accordingly, we

hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with one

year of that suspension stayed on the condition that respondent continue treatment

during this two-year period for her depression and provide proof of that treatment

or a medical statement that treatment is no longer necessary. Costs taxed to

respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIER and STRATTON, JJ., concur.

COOK, J., dissents.

RESNICK, J., not participating.

__________________

COOK, J., dissenting.

{¶ 16} I would indefinitely suspend the respondent as recommended by

relator.

__________________

5