Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Judge

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 96 Ohio St.3d 467.]

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. JUDGE.

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Judge, 2002-Ohio-4741.]

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Attorney neglected client,

refused to cooperate in the investigation of that misconduct, and has since

been indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for similar

conduct.

(No. 2002-0681—Submitted June 5, 2002—Decided October 2, 2002.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-89.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶1} We must decide in this case how to appropriately sanction an attorney

who neglected his client, refused to cooperate in the investigation of this

misconduct, and has since been indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in

Ohio for similar misconduct. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline recommended that respondent, Thomas J. Judge of Cleveland, Ohio,

Attorney Registration No. 0024839, be indefinitely suspended for this conduct after

it found him in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit or

misrepresentation), (5) (conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice),

and (6) (conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney’s fitness to practice law), 6-

101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal matter), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failure

to cooperate in an investigation of misconduct). We agree that respondent

neglected his client, that he failed to cooperate, and that his conduct reflected

adversely on his fitness to practice law. But because DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5) were

not charged in the complaint against respondent, due process prevents us from also

finding these violations. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Simecek (1998), 83 Ohio

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

St.3d 320, 699 N.E.2d 933. Therefore, based on the misconduct before us today,

respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.

{¶2} Upon reviewing the motion for default, a master commissioner for the

board found that respondent did not file an appeal that he was retained to file; he

did not return the client’s telephone calls over the succeeding years; and when the

client finally came to his office in 2000, respondent told the client that the appeal

had been denied. Respondent further did not respond to investigative telephone

inquiries about the client’s grievance. The master commissioner determined that

respondent had thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(4), (5) and (6), 6-101(A)(3), and

Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). After recognizing that respondent was already under

indefinite suspension for previous similar misconduct, he recommended that

respondent be indefinitely suspended. The board adopted the master

commissioner’s findings of misconduct and recommended that respondent be

indefinitely suspended.

{¶3} We adopt the board’s findings as to the violations of DR 1-102(A)(6)

and 6-101(A)(3) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). We do not adopt, however, the board’s

conclusion that respondent also violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5).

{¶4} Presumably, the board found the DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5) violations

because evidence showed that respondent had lied to his client and because Section

1(A) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and

Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline

purports to allow the board, with sufficient evidence, to find violations of

Disciplinary Rules not cited in the complaint. We specifically denounced this

practice as a violation of due process in Simecek, 83 Ohio St.3d 320, 699 N.E.2d

933. In that case, the board found that Simecek had violated Disciplinary Rules

that had not been cited in the complaint. We held that imposing punishment for an

uncharged violation is untenable because “ ‘[t]he absence of fair notice as to the

reach of the grievance procedure and the precise nature of the charges deprive[s]

2

January Term, 2002

[an attorney] of procedural due process.’ ” Id. at 322, 699 N.E.2d 933, quoting In

re Ruffalo (1968), 390 U.S. 544, 552, 88 S.Ct. 1222, 20 L.Ed.2d 117.

{¶5} Nonetheless, we agree that an indefinite suspension is appropriate

under these circumstances. Respondent’s misconduct in this case is part of the

pattern of neglect that was discussed in his prior disciplinary case, and he has

manifested here the same cavalier attitude toward investigative efforts that he did

in the earlier proceeding. These factors have an aggravating impact when

determining how to sanction misconduct. See Section 10(B)(1) of the Rules and

Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board

of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. Moreover, the rule is that

“[n]eglect of legal matters and a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary

investigation generally warrant an indefinite suspension from the practice of law in

Ohio.” Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 211, 212, 718 N.E.2d

1271.

{¶6} Respondent is currently indefinitely suspended from the practice of

law. See Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Judge (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 331, 763 N.E.2d 114.

This decision imposes another indefinite suspension.. Under Gov.Bar R. V(10)(B),

respondent must wait two years from the date of this order before applying for

reinstatement. Accordingly, we order that respondent may not file a petition for

reinstatement for two years from the date of this order. Costs are taxed to

respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

STRATTON, JJ., concur.

COOK, J., dissents.

__________________

COOK, J., dissenting.

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶7} We have already imposed an indefinite suspension upon the

respondent for conduct similar to that involved in this case. See Cleveland Bar

Assn. v. Judge (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 331, 763 N.E.2d 114. Despite that sanction,

the respondent continued to show a complete disregard for the disciplinary process

and this court. As the majority itself acknowledges, this “cavalier attitude” of the

respondent is an aggravating factor. I would accordingly disbar the respondent.

Gary S. Fishman; Fay, Sharpe, Fagan, Minnich & McKee, L.L.P., and

Thomas Kocovsky, for relator.

__________________

4