The opinion
[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 92 Ohio St.3d 419.]
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. DEWEY.
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dewey, 2001-Ohio-202.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Public reprimand—Communicating on the
subject of representation with a party known to be represented by another
lawyer.
(No. 01-371—Submitted April 2, 2001—Decided July 18, 2001.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-43.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} On June 5, 2000, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint
charging that respondent, Ronald D. Dewey of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney Registration
No. 0061193, violated DR 7-104(A)(1) (while representing a client, a lawyer shall
not communicate on the subject of the representation with a party known to be
represented by another lawyer). Respondent failed to answer, and the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”)
referred the matter to Master Commissioner Harry W. White to rule on relator’s
motion for default.
{¶ 2} Based on affidavits attached to relator’s motion and an April 2000
show cause hearing, the master commissioner found that in March 1999, respondent
represented a land-contract vendee in default on her payments who had arranged
for a loan to discharge the balance owed to the vendors. To conclude the loan to
the vendee, the mortgage lender required that the land-contract vendors sign certain
documents. Respondent knew that the vendors were represented by counsel.
Discovering that the land-contract vendors’ attorney was out of town, respondent
telephoned the vendors and demanded that they execute the necessary documents
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
for the mortgage company or he would sue the vendors on behalf of his client for
thousands of dollars. The mortgage company had threatened to cancel the loan
commitment unless the documents were executed on that day. Ultimately, the
transaction was effected.
{¶ 3} Although he did not file a responsive pleading to the complaint, at the
April show-cause hearing respondent claimed that the vendors wanted to recover
the property and therefore did not want the default cured. He further suggested that
this grievance was filed with the Toledo Bar Association in retaliation. Respondent
denied that he spoke with the vendors.
{¶ 4} The master commissioner found the facts as pleaded and concluded
that because respondent had contacted a party who he knew was represented by
counsel, he violated the Disciplinary Rule as charged. The master commissioner
recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand. The board adopted the
findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the master commissioner.
{¶ 5} On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusion, and
recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs
are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
Catherine G. Hoolahan and William C. Eickholt, for relator.
__________________
2