The opinion
[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 94 Ohio St.3d 429.]
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. KIEFT.
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kieft, 2002-Ohio-1234.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Neglect of an entrusted legal
matter—Failing to carry out contract of employment—Failing to promptly
return clients’ funds or other property—Failing to cooperate in investigation
of grievance.
(No. 01-1881—Submitted December 12, 2001—Decided March 6, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court, No. 01-11.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} In a complaint filed on February 5, 2001, relator, Cincinnati Bar
Association, charged respondent, David W. Kieft of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0042465, with misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). Respondent was served the complaint but
did not answer. Relator accordingly moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the
Supreme Court appointed a master commissioner to review the default motion. The
master commissioner found that respondent had committed various violations of DR
6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a
contract of employment), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly return client’s funds or
other property) in the course of representing three clients and that he had failed to
cooperate in the investigation of their grievances in violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
The master commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law in Ohio for a period of two years with the second year suspended on
conditions. The board adopted the findings of misconduct but recommended that
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
respondent receive an indefinite suspension “based on his misconduct and total failure
to cooperate or explain his actions.”
{¶ 3} We agree with the board. In December 1999, respondent promised to
represent Jerry Johnson in a bankruptcy proceeding; however, respondent subsequently
failed to produce certain financial records required by the trustee, he failed to return
Johnson’s telephone messages, and he failed to attend a hearing after advising Johnson
that his (Johnson’s) presence was not necessary. Respondent also failed to reply to a
second hearing notice, after which the court dismissed the bankruptcy proceeding.
Johnson ultimately fired respondent. Respondent then ignored Johnson’s request for
the return of files and records and refused to answer inquiries made by Johnson’s new
counsel. As the board found, this conduct constitutes violations of DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-
101(A)(2), and 9-102(B)(4), and respondent’s failure to cooperate in the investigation
of Johnson’s grievance constitutes a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
{¶ 4} Kyle Robinson also retained respondent in 1999, paying him $1,000 to
secure a discharge from the Ohio National Guard. Respondent obtained the discharge
but did not send Robinson a final bill or return the unused portion of Robinson’s
retainer as promised. Respondent further ignored Robinson’s messages asking for the
final bill and refund. As the board found, this conduct violates DR 6-101(A)(3) and 9-
102(B)(4), and respondent’s failure to cooperate in the investigation of Robinson’s
grievance constitutes a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
{¶ 5} Finally, in May 2000, respondent agreed to represent Joyce A. Scribbin
in a divorce action. After paying respondent $460, Scribbin was unable to contact him
by telephone or facsimile. In July 2000, respondent failed to appear at a scheduling
conference, and Scribbin wrote to respondent to advise him of this and again to request
a response. Not only did respondent ignore Scribbin’s letter, he missed a second
scheduling conference held later that month. As the board found, this conduct violates
DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2), and respondent’s failure to cooperate in the
investigation of Scribbin’s grievance constitutes a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
2
January Term, 2002
{¶ 6} Having failed to respond in any way to the charges in this complaint,
respondent has offered nothing to mitigate his misconduct. “Absent mitigating
circumstances, an indefinite suspension from the practice of law is an appropriate
sanction when an attorney engages in a pattern of neglect involving multiple clients
and refuses to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigations.” Lorain Cty. Bar
Assn. v. Fernandez (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 82, 84, 728 N.E.2d 1056, 1057. Respondent
is, therefore, suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio.
{¶ 7} Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
COOK, J., concurs in judgment.
__________________
Paul M. De Marco and Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator.
__________________
3