The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 89 Ohio St.3d 113.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WALLACE.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace, 2000-Ohio-120.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Six-month suspension—Engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
(No. 99-1866—Submitted January 12, 2000—Decided May 31, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-51.
__________________
{¶ 1} In July 1992, Crestline Building & Loan Association, the mortgage
holder, purchased a residence owned by James Benedict at a foreclosure sale. In
November 1993, Benedict retained respondent, Paul Wallace of Columbus, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0010369, to recover title to his home from the Resolution
Trust Corporation (“RTC”), which had taken control of Crestline in November
1992.
{¶ 2} In December 1993, respondent filed an action to recover the property
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
Crestline, the RTC, and two real estate companies charged with managing the
property on behalf of the RTC. On December 28, 1993, the defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint for insufficient service of process, failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, and failure to join parties under Fed.R.Civ.Proc.
19. Respondent did not respond to the motion, and in February 1994, the court
dismissed the complaint. Respondent did not inform Benedict that the case had
been dismissed and did not file an appeal.
{¶ 3} After the dismissal, respondent continued to take actions that led
Benedict to believe that the case was still pending, including billing Benedict in
April 1994 for a “Review of RTC Motions” performed on March 1, 1994, and
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
renewing that billing in May and June 1994. In July and August 1994, respondent
sent letters to Benedict indicating that he intended to “push forward with the
litigation” and get the matter set for hearing as soon as possible and that the case
was the “most important matter in this office at this time.”
{¶ 4} Also in August 1994, respondent wrote to Benedict stating that he
would file an amended complaint in an attempt to add another plaintiff to the
lawsuit. In October 1994, he wrote to Benedict stating that he was awaiting a
decision on a jurisdictional motion raised by the defendants.
{¶ 5} In February 1995, respondent wrote to Benedict suggesting that he
consider filing a state court lawsuit to address the same issues. In that same month,
Benedict called the Clerk of the United States District Court and was informed that
the case had been dismissed a year earlier. Due to the statute of limitations, it was
then too late for Benedict to refile his case.
{¶ 6} In August 1998, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
complaint charging that respondent’s conduct violated several Disciplinary Rules.
Respondent answered, and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”). The panel found that
respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in
conduct that adversely reflects upon the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). After
noting in mitigation that respondent returned Benedict’s retainer and receiving
character testimony from several attorneys, the panel recommended that respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for six months and that the entire six months
be stayed. The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel and
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six
months.
__________________
2
January Term, 2000
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Michael T. Gunner, for respondent.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 7} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
board. Respondent’s repeated attempts to mislead his client constitute a course of
conduct in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), which warrants an actual suspension from
the practice of law. Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d
187, 191, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice
of law in Ohio for six months. Cost are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
3