The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 89 Ohio St.3d 370.]
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. CONNORS.
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Connors, 2000-Ohio-165.]
Attorneys at law— Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Engaging in
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice—Engaging in conduct
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—Neglect of an entrusted
legal matter.
(No. 99-2232—Submitted March 8, 2000—Decided July 19, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-19.
__________________
{¶ 1} On April 6, 1998, and as amended on October 14, 1998, relator,
Columbus Bar Association, filed a complaint charging respondent, John J. Connors,
Jr., of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0031717, with several violations
of the Disciplinary Rules. Respondent answered, and a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”)
heard this matter on August 30, 1999.
{¶ 2} As to Counts One and Six, we had suspended respondent from the
practice of law on July 1, 1997, because he had not satisfied all the conditions of a
previous suspension. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Connors (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 1432,
680 N.E.2d 1008. Respondent learned of this suspension on July 2, 1997, during
his regular perusal of our announcements in our Public Information Office, and
received official notice of this suspension on July 10, 1997, by certified mail.
{¶ 3} Our order found respondent to be in contempt of this court. We
suspended respondent “until such time as respondent purges himself of contempt,
pays publication costs including any accrued interest, files an application for
1
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
reinstatement and is reinstated by this court.” We further ordered respondent to
“immediately cease and desist from the practice of law in any form” and forbade
him from “appear[ing] on behalf of another before any court, judge, commission,
board, administrative agency, or other public authority.” We also ordered
respondent, within thirty days from the date of the order, to “[n]otify all clients
being represented in pending matters * * * of his suspension and his consequent
disqualification to act as an attorney * * * [and] notify the clients to seek legal
service elsewhere,” notify opposing counsel, and “file a notice of disqualification
of respondent with the court or agency before which the litigation is pending for
inclusion in the respective file or files[.]” We, further, ordered respondent to
“[r]efund any part of any fees or expenses paid in advance that are unearned or not
paid * * *.” We reinstated respondent on September 25, 1997. Columbus Bar Assn.
v. Connors (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 1404, 684 N.E.2d 699.
{¶ 4} In Count One, respondent had undertaken, before July 1, 1997, to
represent John R. Ennis in a criminal matter pending before Judge Deborah P.
O’Neill in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. The court scheduled a
pretrial hearing in that case for July 24, 1997. Respondent did not notify Ennis of
respondent’s suspension before the hearing and did not advise Ennis to secure
another attorney to represent himself.
{¶ 5} Instead, respondent talked with Judge O’Neill’s bailiff, Karen Moore,
on July 23, one day before the scheduled pretrial hearing. Respondent advised her
that, while he was under suspension, he anticipated that this court would soon
transmit facsimile documents to Judge O’Neill, notifying her about the lifting of
the suspension. Respondent admitted at the panel’s hearing that no one from the
Supreme Court had given him any reason to expect this to occur.
{¶ 6} In any event, Judge O’Neill, who saw respondent that day, directed
Moore to learn about respondent’s status. Moore learned from this court that we
2
January Term, 2000
had not granted respondent’s motion for reinstatement and we had not lifted his
suspension.
{¶ 7} At the pretrial hearing the next day, Judge O’Neill confronted
respondent, who still maintained that we had reinstated him. Judge O’Neill stepped
off the bench and telephoned a representative of this court, who informed Judge
O’Neill that we had not reinstated respondent and that we were not about to transmit
a facsimile document to that effect.
{¶ 8} Judge O’Neill opened the record to inform Ennis that respondent was
under suspension and that Ennis must hire another attorney. In this exchange, Judge
O’Neill learned that respondent had not informed Ennis of the suspension.
{¶ 9} The panel found that respondent had misrepresented his status as an
attorney to Judge O’Neill and Bailiff Moore. The panel, consequently, concluded
that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct
adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).
{¶ 10} In Count Six, respondent, in March 1997, began representing Victor
Turner, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, to secure Turner’s release
from prison. Respondent received a payment of $500 on March 5, 1997, $5,000 on
July 9, 1997, and $1,000 on July 28, 1997, for this representation. Respondent
knew of his suspension when he received the latter two payments. Respondent
negotiated the checks, which were for services not yet rendered, and deposited them
in his personal checking account. He did not refund the payments to Turner.
{¶ 11} On three occasions during his suspension, respondent gained
admission to the prison to confer with Turner by completing forms indicating that
respondent was Turner’s attorney. Respondent did advise Turner verbally of
respondent’s suspension but did not notify him in writing, certified return receipt
requested, as required in our July 1 order.
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 12} The panel found that respondent misrepresented his status as an
attorney to the prison authorities to gain access to Turner and that he continued to
practice law during his suspension by accepting payments totaling $6,000. The
panel concluded that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), and 1-
102(A)(6).
{¶ 13} As to Count Three, Robin Moses hired respondent to represent her
in a wage-garnishment action. This action arose from a judgment obtained by her
former landlord for rent and for damages to her apartment occurring after she
abandoned the apartment but before the lease term expired. Moses’s mother had
paid respondent $350 for this representation.
{¶ 14} Respondent, in interviewing Moses, had not learned from her that
she had quit the apartment before the lease term had expired. He first learned about
this at the disciplinary hearing. Respondent filed a motion for relief from judgment
and answer. He, however, did not support the motion with legal authority and did
not present evidence in a form authorized under Civ.R. 56(E) sufficient to establish
a meritorious defense. The panel concluded that, under these circumstances,
respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to
him).
{¶ 15} Relator dismissed Counts Four and Five; the panel dismissed Count
Two.
{¶ 16} The panel, agreeing with relator, recommended that we indefinitely
suspend respondent from the practice of law. The board adopted the panel’s
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation.
__________________
Bruce A. Campbell, Kristy J. Swope and Stanley D. Ross, for relator.
John J. Connors, Jr., pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
4
January Term, 2000
{¶ 17} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
board. We hereby indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law. Costs
taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ.,
concur.
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., not participating.
__________________
5