# Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley

> Ohio Supreme Court · August 21, 1996 · 76 Ohio St. 3d 365

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11150114

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 21, 1996
- **Citations:** 76 Ohio St. 3d 365; 1996 Ohio 391
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11150114

## Opinion text

[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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11150114. Public record. Not legal advice.