# Toledo Bar Assn. v. Meyer

> Ohio Supreme Court · April 24, 2002 · 95 Ohio St. 3d 111

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11152988

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 24, 2002
- **Citations:** 95 Ohio St. 3d 111; 2002 Ohio 1941
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11152988

## Opinion text

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 95 Ohio St.3d 111.]

TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. MEYER.
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Meyer, 2002-Ohio-1941.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Neglect of an entrusted
legal matter—Failing to seek client’s lawful objectives—Failing to carry
out contract of professional employment—Failing to account for or return
client’s funds—Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation.
(No. 01-2171—Submitted February 6, 2002—Decided April 24, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-32.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} On April 9, 2001, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint
charging respondent, Richard Allen Meyer, Jr., of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0008952, with three counts of professional misconduct.
Respondent failed to answer, and the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline referred relator’s motion for default to a master commissioner for ruling.
{¶ 2} Count One of the complaint charged that Antonio and Barbara Duran
retained respondent in May 1999 to file bankruptcy on their behalf. The couple
paid respondent $800, but to their knowledge he never filed the bankruptcy petition.
Respondent also failed to keep contact with these clients, and he never returned
their file or their retainer. The master commissioner found that this conduct
violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1)
(failing to seek client’s lawful objectives), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a
contact of professional employment), and 9-102 (failing to account for or return
client’s funds). Because respondent failed to cooperate in relator’s investigation of
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

the misconduct, the master commissioner also found that respondent violated
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
{¶ 3} With respect to Count Two, the master commissioner found that
respondent had violated the same rules in the course of representing Robert T.
Pirucki, Sr. Pirucki retained respondent in July 1998 to file a bankruptcy on his
behalf. Pirucki paid respondent $800, but again respondent failed to file the
bankruptcy petition and to maintain contact with his client. Respondent further
failed to return any portion of Pirucki’s funds. Because respondent failed to
cooperate in the investigation of this misconduct, the master commissioner found
that respondent had again violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
{¶ 4} According to Count Three, Pirucki also engaged respondent to
represent him in a divorce action in 1998. Respondent did not maintain client
contact in this case and further failed to notify Pirucki of or represent him at two
scheduled court appearances. Pirucki ultimately had to retain other counsel. The
master commissioner found that this conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3), and 7-
101(A)(1) and (2) and also that respondent’s failure to cooperate in the
investigation of this misconduct violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
{¶ 5} For all these infractions and the lack of any mitigating factors, the
master commissioner recommended, as had relator, that respondent be suspended
indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio. Upon adopting the master
commissioner’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, the board accepted this
recommendation.
{¶ 6} On review of the record, we concur in the board’s findings of
misconduct and agree that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction.
Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law
in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

2
January Term, 2002

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
Paul D. Giha and Patricia Horner, for relator.
__________________

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11152988. Public record. Not legal advice.