The opinion
[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 91 Ohio St.3d 385.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HARP.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Harp, 2001-Ohio-48.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Six-month suspension with entire six months
stayed—Probation for six months with law practice monitored by a local
attorney—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter—Intentionally failing to
seek legal objectives of client—Failing to carry out contract for
professional services—Prejudicing or damaging client during course of
professional relationship.
(No. 00-1891—Submitted December 13, 2000—Decided April 18, 2001.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-44.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} In 1994, Gary York hired respondent, Edward Harp of Georgetown,
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0023236, to appeal a finding of the Industrial
Commission disallowing his workers’ compensation claim. Respondent filed
York’s appeal, but failed to file a response when the state moved to dismiss for lack
of prosecution. As a result, York’s appeal was dismissed and respondent, after
learning of the dismissal, took no action to attempt to set it aside.
{¶ 2} Earlier, in 1993, Mickel and Debbie Long engaged respondent and
paid him $250 to collect a judgment in Tennessee. Respondent took no action in
the matter until informed by the Longs in 1998 that the judgment debtor had moved
to Virginia, when respondent engaged local counsel for assistance in that state.
However, respondent not only failed to forward the necessary paperwork to local
Virginia counsel, but he allowed the matter to languish for more than five years.
During that time, the Longs became increasingly dissatisfied with respondent’s
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
failure to communicate with them. In January 1999, respondent terminated the
services of local counsel, and in February 1999, respondent himself withdrew from
representation, leaving the Longs without counsel in either state.
{¶ 3} Still earlier, from 1987 through 1999, by meeting with Donald
Crawford and preparing several complaints that were never filed, respondent led
Crawford to believe that he would file a complaint in the Ohio Court of Claims for
injuries that Crawford received while incarcerated in prison.
{¶ 4} Based on grievances received from York, the Longs, and Crawford,
relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed an amended complaint on February
28, 2000, charging respondent with violation of several Disciplinary Rules.
Respondent answered, and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”).
{¶ 5} After conducting a hearing and receiving stipulations of the parties,
the panel found the facts as stated and concluded that in each matter respondent’s
conduct had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter),
7-101(A)(1) (intentionally failing to seek the legal objectives of the client),
7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract for professional services), and
7-101(A)(3) (prejudicing or damaging a client during the course of the professional
relationship).
{¶ 6} In mitigation, the panel found that respondent had demonstrated
remorse. Respondent admitted that he had failed to properly calendar the York
matter and had not followed through for the Longs, who had a malpractice action
pending against him. In addition, Crawford had been a long-term client of
respondent’s and from 1987 through 1999, respondent had handled numerous
matters for Crawford, including a potential divorce action, a charge of disorderly
conduct, a bankruptcy for him and his wife, and a case involving Crawford’s
daughter. Respondent explained that his investigation of Crawford’s prison stay
revealed that Crawford was guilty not only of the crimes of which he was convicted,
2
January Term, 2001
but also of other felonies. Moreover, respondent could develop no facts to support
Crawford’s alleged mistreatment in prison. In further mitigation, the panel found
that as late as January 2000, Crawford continued to contact respondent for legal
representation in other matters. Finally, the panel found that respondent presented
evidence that he had taken steps to reduce his caseload, increase his staff, and adopt
management practices to avoid these problems in the future.
{¶ 7} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for six months with the entire six months stayed and that for the
next year respondent be placed on probation, with his law practice monitored by a
local attorney selected by the mutual consent of the relator and the respondent. The
board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel, but modified the
recommendation to reduce the probation period to six months.
{¶ 8} After a review of the record, 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. Effective immediately,
respondent is placed on probation for six months, with his law practice to be
monitored by a local attorney selected by relator and respondent. Failure to satisfy
the conditions of his probation will result in reinstatement of respondent’s stayed
suspension. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Peter Rosenwald, for respondent.
__________________
3