Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wilson

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 89 Ohio St.3d 243.]

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILSON.

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wilson, 2000-Ohio-147.]

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Six-month suspension stayed with probation—

Neglecting an entrusted legal matter—Failing to seek lawful objectives of

client—Failing to carry out contract of employment—Prejudicing or

damaging client during course of professional relationship—Failing to

cooperate in disciplinary investigation.

(No. 98-2616—Submitted February 23, 2000—Decided June 28, 2000.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-38.

__________________

{¶ 1} Respondent, Steven C. Wilson of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0032952, filed a personal injury action on behalf of Joseph

McAtee, in December 1991. Thereafter, he failed to inform his client that the

defendant offered to settle the suit for $8,000.

{¶ 2} Later, in September 1994, respondent established a post office box as

his mailing address and relied on the postal service to forward his mail. He notified

relator, the Cincinnati Bar Association, of his change of address, but did not file

change of address notices in any of his pending cases.

{¶ 3} On October 4, 1994, the defendant in the McAtee suit filed a motion

for summary judgment, serving respondent at his previous office address.

Respondent failed to respond or appear at the hearing, and in January 1995, the

court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed McAtee’s suit

with prejudice.

{¶ 4} Respondent told McAtee of the dismissal, and said that he intended to

file a Civ.R. 60(B) motion in an attempt to “overturn” the decision. However,

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

respondent failed to file the motion timely, and in March 1996, he informed McAtee

that his case was lost and nothing could be done. McAtee then sued respondent for

malpractice, and respondent settled by signing a note for $7,500. As of September

1999, respondent had not paid anything on the note.

{¶ 5} On April 14, 1997, relator filed a complaint charging respondent with

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

or misrepresentation), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-

101(A)(1) (failing to seek the lawful objectives of a client), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to

carry out a contract of employment with a client), 7-101(A)(3) (prejudicing or

damaging a client during the course of a professional relationship), Gov.Bar R.

V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation), and Gov.Bar R. VI(D)

(failing to keep the Attorney Registration Office apprised of a current residence and

office address). Respondent answered denying the charges, and a panel of the

Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”) heard the matter

on October 3, 1997.

{¶ 6} In response to evidence introduced at the hearing, the panel ordered a

psychiatric examination of the respondent. Based on the results of that

examination, the board certified the matter to the Supreme Court pursuant to

Gov.Bar R. V(7)(B) (suspension for mental illness). The court, however, remanded

the case to the board for an evidentiary hearing based on respondent’s motion to

vacate the certification on the ground that he had no opportunity to respond to the

psychiatric examination. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wilson (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d

1417, 707 N.E.2d 509.

{¶ 7} On remand, the panel found the facts as set forth herein and further

that respondent had failed to cooperate with relator during its investigation. The

panel concluded that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-

101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). The panel found insufficient

evidence that respondent was currently mentally ill, and in view of the fact that this

2

January Term, 2000

was an isolated incident in respondent’s career, recommended that he be publicly

reprimanded. The panel further recommended that respondent be assigned a

mentor to help him in his practice and that he pay restitution of $8,000 to McAtee.

{¶ 8} The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel, but

recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months

with the entire six months stayed and probation imposed. It further recommended

that respondent be assigned a monitor selected by relator to assist him in his practice

and that he pay restitution to McAtee.

__________________

E. Hanlin Bavely, James A. Vogele and Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator.

John H. Berlew, for respondent.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 9} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the

board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six months

with the entire six months stayed subject to being actually served should respondent

fail to meet the conditions of his probation. The probation conditions include

cooperation with a mentor as selected by relator and payment to McAtee, no later

than six months from the date of this judgment, of $8,000 plus interest at the

judgment rate from June 1995. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

__________________

3