The opinion
[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 96 Ohio St.3d 148.]
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. DEWEY.
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dewey, 2002-Ohio-3608.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Two-year suspension with final year stayed on
conditions—Communicating directly with another party in a juvenile
proceeding about the substance of the case knowing that the other party
was represented by counsel—Failing to cooperate in disciplinary process
by ignoring several inquires concerning a grievance arising from
attorney’s actions.
(No. 2002-0324—Submitted May 8, 2002—Decided July 31, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-43.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶1} On June 5, 2000, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint
charging respondent, Ronald D. Dewey of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney Registration No.
0061193, with violating DR 7-104(A)(1) (while representing a client,
communicating on the subject of the representation with a party known to be
represented by another lawyer). The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) found that respondent had committed
the charged violation, and we subsequently adopted the board’s findings and
recommendation and publicly reprimanded respondent. Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dewey
(2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 419, 750 N.E.2d 1118.
{¶2} In 2000, respondent represented David Sabino, Sr. in a criminal case
in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, as well as in a dependency, abuse,
and neglect proceeding in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division. Both of these cases involved allegations that Sabino had sexually abused
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
his minor child. On June 20, 2000, a juvenile court magistrate held a hearing in the
dependency, abuse, and neglect proceeding. At the hearing, the minor child was
represented by a guardian ad litem and an attorney, the minor child’s mother was
represented by counsel, and respondent represented Sabino.
{¶3} Subsequent to the June 20, 2000 juvenile court hearing, the mother of
the minor child contacted respondent and expressed concern about the truthfulness
of the child’s allegations of abuse against Sabino. Respondent advised the mother
that he would schedule a psychological evaluation of the child to determine whether
the child was lying, and he warned the mother not to tell her attorney, the guardian
ad litem, or anyone else about their conversation because he would “get in trouble.”
The psychological evaluation scheduled by respondent for July 8, 2000, did not
occur after the guardian ad litem and the mother objected.
{¶4} A grievance was filed with relator concerning respondent’s conduct,
and respondent failed to respond to relator’s inquiries about the grievance or
otherwise cooperate with relator’s investigation of the grievance.
{¶5} On April 9, 2001, relator filed a complaint with the board charging
respondent with violating, inter alia, DR 7-104(A)(1) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
(failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation) in the Sabino matter. After
respondent failed to answer, the matter was referred to a master commissioner
under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(2) on relator’s motion for default judgment. In relator’s
motion, relator restricted its claims to the charged violations of DR 7-104(A)(1)
and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and withdrew the other charges contained in the complaint.
{¶6} The master commissioner found the facts as previously set forth and
concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 7-104(A)(1) and Gov.Bar R.
V(4)(G). The master commissioner recommended, consistent with relator’s
recommendation, that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one
year with the second six months of the suspension stayed, but recommended the
following conditions: (1) that there be no further violations of the Code of
2
January Term, 2002
Professional Responsibility for a period of two years, (2) that prior to the imposition
of the stay, respondent comply with all mandatory continuing legal education
requirements and in addition complete no fewer than four hours of approved
continuing legal education in professional responsibility before imposition of the
stay and during each reporting period during the probationary period, and (3) that
respondent be responsible for the costs of the disciplinary action. The board
adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the master commissioner but
instead recommended that, “based on the repeated offense and his attitude of total
non cooperation,” respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years,
with one year stayed upon the conditions specified by the master commissioner.
{¶7} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board.
In determining the appropriate sanction, Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline authorizes the board to consider prior
disciplinary offenses and the lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process. BCGD
Reg. 10(B)(1)(a) and (e). It may also consider all other relevant factors. BCGD
Reg. 10(B). We may also consider these aggravating circumstances and all other
relevant factors in deciding what sanction to impose. Disciplinary Counsel v.
Evans (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 497, 501, 733 N.E.2d 609.
{¶8} As the board found, although respondent’s conduct here occurred
before our public reprimand of him for a similar violation of DR 7-104(A)(1) in
Dewey, 92 Ohio St.3d 419, 750 N.E.2d 1118, it occurred after relator filed a
complaint charging respondent with violating DR 7-104(A)(1) in the previous
disciplinary case. Despite being on notice that this conduct could constitute a
violation of the Disciplinary Rules, respondent nevertheless proceeded to engage
in similar conduct here by communicating directly with another party to the
juvenile proceeding about the substance of the case, although he knew that the other
party was represented by counsel. And once charged with this violation, respondent
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, ignoring several inquiries concerning
a grievance arising from his actions.
{¶9} Based on the foregoing, the board’s recommended sanction, i.e., a two-
year suspension with one year stayed upon the specified conditions, is appropriate.
We hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years, with the final
year stayed, provided that respondent (1) not further violate the Code of
Professional Responsibility for the two-year period, (2) comply with all mandatory
continuing legal education requirements and in addition complete no fewer than
four hours of approved continuing legal education in professional responsibility
before the imposition of the stay and during each reporting period required during
the probationary period, and (3) be responsible for the costs of this disciplinary
action. 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.
Ronald D. Dewey, pro se.
__________________
4