Opinion

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Wolfrom

  • 83 Ohio St. 3d 1
  • 1998 Ohio 418
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Aug 12, 1998
Status
Published
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 58.1%

The opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 83 Ohio St.3d 1.]

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. WOLFROM.

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Wolfrom, 1998-Ohio-418.]

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Receiving fees for services

not performed—Failing to assist in disciplinary investigation—Default of a

child support order.

(No. 97-2634—Submitted May 13, 1998—Decided August 12, 1998.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-15.

__________________

{¶ 1} In a complaint filed on February 18, 1997, relator, Columbus Bar

Association, charged that on three separate occasions respondent, Carl T. Wolfrom

of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0019564, received fees for services

that he failed to perform. After respondent answered, the matter was heard by a

panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme

Court (“board”).

{¶ 2} The panel found with respect to count one that in September 1995,

Ralph Allen Griffith of Lancaster employed respondent as an additional attorney

and paid him a retainer of $5,000 to represent him in a misdemeanor case involving

charges of aggravated menacing and production of marijuana. Respondent spoke

with the county prosecutor, found that the misdemeanor charges would be

dismissed and a felony charge substituted, and did nothing further to represent

Griffith in the misdemeanor matter. In December 1995, based on the same facts, a

grand jury indicted Griffith on similar felony charges. Aside from appearing

unannounced in early 1996 at a hearing in the felony case on a motion to suppress

filed by Griffith’s original attorney, respondent took no other action on behalf of

Griffith. Griffith entered a plea of guilty with respect to the marijuana felony

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

charge. Respondent then failed to respond to Griffith’s request that he return the

$5,000 retainer. Respondent admitted and the panel found that respondent had

violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting upon the fitness

to practice law), 2-106(A) (charging a clearly excessive fee), and 6-101(A)(3)

(neglecting an entrusted legal matter).

{¶ 3} The second count considered by the panel involved Joseph

Thompson, whom respondent represented in 1991 when Thompson was prosecuted

for aggravated vehicular homicide. When Thompson was denied parole in 1994

after serving three years of a five-to-ten-year prison term, his parents informed

respondent of the denial by mail. Respondent then telephoned the parents several

times, indicating that he could get Thompson released on parole by the holidays,

meaning Christmas of 1994. The parents paid respondent a retainer of $8,500.

Respondent visited Thompson in the penitentiary several times and spoke with the

prosecutor. After Christmas in 1994, when their son was not released, the parents

were neither able to contact respondent by telephone for over a year, nor to obtain

a refund of the $8,500. The panel found that respondent, by soliciting legal work

where the likelihood of providing meaningful legal services was nil, violated DR

1-102(A)(6), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,

or misrepresentation), and 2-106(A).

{¶ 4} The panel found that in March 1996, respondent agreed to represent

Paul Suber, who was wanted by federal authorities for a drug offense in Atlanta.

Respondent received a fee of $7,500 from Suber’s parents on the understanding

that he would aid Suber in surrendering, and would attempt to secure a favorable

plea bargain for him. Suber’s parents expected that respondent would travel to

Atlanta, Georgia, and talk to federal officials about their son’s case. Respondent

denied any such promise. He did attempt unsuccessfully to talk with federal agents

in Atlanta by telephone. Respondent also visited Suber on several occasions after

Suber was arrested in Columbus, Ohio, in April 1996, and attended a hearing on

2

January Term, 1998

his behalf. Suber discharged respondent in June 1996. The panel concluded that

respondent’s actions and failures to act in the Suber matter violated DR 1-102(A)(6)

and 2-106(A).

{¶ 5} The panel also found that for nine months after relator’s investigation

began, until respondent obtained the services of an attorney, respondent failed to

cooperate with relator’s investigation in violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no

attorney shall refuse to assist in a disciplinary investigation).

{¶ 6} In mitigation, respondent offered letters from five judges and an

attorney testifying to his character and ability. He also presented evidence that

during the time of the violations, he was addicted to alcohol and was going through

a divorce. Respondent indicated that in April 1997, he joined the Ohio Lawyers

Assistance Program and at the time of the hearing was in compliance with its

requirements.

{¶ 7} In June 1997, the board was notified that the Franklin County Child

Support Enforcement Agency had determined that respondent was in default of a

child support order.

{¶ 8} The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended

from the practice of law, that he make restitution for the unearned funds received

from Griffith, Thompson, and Suber, and that he satisfy all child support arrearages.

The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the panel.

__________________

Terry K. Sherman and Bruce A. Campbell, for relator.

Dennis W. McNamara, for respondent.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 9} Having reviewed the record, we adopt the findings and conclusions of

the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

Respondent is further ordered to make restitution for the unearned funds received

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

from Griffith, Thompson, and Suber with statutory interest, and bring his child

support obligations current with statutory interest and remain in compliance with

those obligations. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and

LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

__________________

4

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.