The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 78 Ohio St.3d 57.]
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION V. SNYDER.
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder, 1997-Ohio-95.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Not delivering
files to which client is entitled--Neglecting an entrusted legal matter—
Failing to carry out contract of employment—Failing to maintain records
of client funds and render accounts to client—Failing to promptly pay or
deliver client’s funds—Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation.
(No. 96-2428--Submitted December 11, 1996--Decided March 26, 1997.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-47.
__________________
{¶ 1} On October 11, 1995, the relator, Akron Bar Association, filed an
amended complaint charging respondent, Scott W. Snyder of Canal Fulton, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0030089, with violating several Disciplinary Rules while
representing six clients during the years 1992 through 1994.
{¶ 2} Based upon a stipulation of the parties and testimony received at a
hearing on February 23, 1996, a panel of the Board of Commissioners and
Grievances of the Supreme Court (“board”) found that during the period 1992
through 1994 respondent had violated the following Disciplinary Rules: DR 1-
102(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation), 2-110((A)(2) (not delivering files to which the client is
entitled), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (failing
to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client), 9-102(B)(3)
(failing to maintain records of client funds and render accounts to a client), and 9-
102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay or deliver funds to a client). The panel also
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
determined that respondent had violated Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G)(duty to cooperate in
an investigation).
{¶ 3} Specifically, the panel found that in April 1992, Addie Hampton
engaged respondent to handle the transfer of real estate in the probate court.
Respondent did not complete the transfer, did not return Hampton’s phone calls
inquiring about the matter, and did not account for or return the $700 advance
payment he received from Hampton until the day of the hearing of his disciplinary
action.
{¶ 4} The panel also found that Wanda Hilling engaged respondent to
represent her in a personal injury action on a one-third contingency fee basis. The
settlement check, jointly payable to respondent and Wanda and Edward Hilling,
was endorsed by the Hillings in April 1994, but, despite repeated inquiries, Wanda
Hilling neither received from respondent an accounting for the settlement nor her
share of the settlement until the day of the disciplinary hearing. Respondent had
delivered a check payable to Wanda Hilling in December 1994, but it was returned
for insufficient funds.
{¶ 5} The panel further found that Jacqueline Acker retained respondent in
August 1993 to probate her father’s will. Acker met with respondent four times
between August 1993 and April 1994. After her stepmother died in May 1994,
Acker retained respondent to probate her stepmother’s will. After May 2, 1994,
except for one July 1994 telephone conversation, Acker could no longer reach
respondent despite repeated attempts by telephone and letter. In December 1994,
Acker learned that neither will was filed and that neither estate was opened.
Respondent’s office was closed, and Acker had no way to retrieve her files.
{¶ 6} In addition, the panel found that Marjorie A. Vance retained
respondent in July 1993 to represent her father’s estate. A year later, she discovered
that, contrary to respondent’s assurances, he had not transferred her father’s real
2
January Term, 1997
property to her mother and her brothers. Respondent also failed to respond to
Vance’s request that her original papers be returned to her.
{¶ 7} The panel further found that in June or July 1993, Becky Griggs
retained respondent to represent her in a domestic relations case. Griggs next talked
with respondent when he called on July 31, 1994 to tell her that because of an
illness, an August 1, 1994 hearing in her case was canceled and he would contact
her shortly. Griggs never heard from respondent again. Through her own efforts
she found that the hearing was rescheduled for February 9, 1995, and after
numerous unavailing attempts to contact respondent, Griggs appeared at the
hearing without counsel.
{¶ 8} Finally, the panel found that after Laura L. Haag paid respondent $450
on July 16, 1992 to obtain a divorce for her, respondent took no steps to pursue the
matter. On the day of the disciplinary hearing respondent repaid the $450 to Haag.
{¶ 9} At the hearing, the panel received testimony that respondent enjoyed
a good reputation in the legal community until 1993 when he began to show
symptoms of despondency. These symptoms began when his father died in March
1993. As his despondency increased, respondent began to neglect his legal work,
and in October 1994 he was admitted to the hospital. He was treated by a
psychiatrist for the next two months for “major depression.” In January 1995,
respondent gave up the practice of law and began driving a truck to earn income.
In the initial stages of relator’s investigation respondent’s attitude was one of
indifference. However, when a member of the relator’s grievance committee
impressed respondent with the seriousness of the proceedings, he did cooperate.
{¶ 10} In view of the fact that respondent has sought treatment for his
depression, that he has shown remorse for the difficulties he caused his clients, and
that he has reimbursed his clients for their monetary damages, the panel
recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended. The panel believed that
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
such a sanction would give respondent the opportunity to return to the practice of
law sometime in the future.
{¶ 11} The board adopted the panel’s findings, conclusions, and
recommendation.
__________________
John C. Weisensell, Michael C. Scanlon and Michael L. Stark, for relator.
Scott W. Snyder, pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 12} We approve the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendation of the board. From a review of the record we can understand the
factors which caused respondent to neglect his professional duty to his clients.
Nevertheless, we have a constitutional duty to oversee the conduct of the legal
profession in Ohio, and we cannot condone respondent’s failures to meet his
responsibilities. An attorney’s failure to carry out a legal matter entrusted to him
and failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation have warranted
suspension from the practice of law. Disciplinary Counsel v. Liebold (1990), 53
Ohio St.3d 128, 559 N.E.2d 749. In a previous case where we found that
rehabilitation was as much or more appropriate than discipline, we imposed a
sanction of indefinite suspension. Disciplinary Counsel v. Trumbo (1996), 76 Ohio
St.3d 369, 667 N.E.2d 1186. We believe the same sanction is appropriate here.
Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.
Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
4