The opinion
[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 94 Ohio St.3d 222.]
STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. CONRAD.
[Cite as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Conrad, 2002-Ohio-644.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Neglect of an entrusted
legal matter—Neglecting or refusing to assist or testify in a disciplinary
investigation or hearing.
(No. 01-1580—Submitted October 16, 2001—Decided January 30, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-16.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} On February 5, 2001, relator, Stark County Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging respondent, Roxann Conrad of Canton, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0040529, with the neglect of a matter before the United States Tax
Court. Respondent failed to answer, and the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline (“board”) referred relator’s motion for default to board
member Michael E. Murman for ruling.
{¶ 2} Based upon the unanswered allegations of the complaint and the
affidavits attached to the motion for default, the board member found that near the
end of 1998, Nicholas and Carol Sylvester retained respondent to represent them
before the United States Tax Court. After respondent filed a petition for
redetermination of taxes in January 1999, the Sylvesters did not hear from
respondent until she called them in December 1999 to tell them that the case would
be on the tax court’s January 2000 docket. After they received that information,
the Sylvesters heard nothing further from respondent and were unable to contact
her. In mid-2000, the Sylvesters received a demand from the Internal Revenue
Service that they pay $8,872, which was the amount in dispute before the tax court.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Upon inquiry they discovered that their tax case had been set for January 24, 2000,
but was dismissed for failure of anyone to appear. At that point the time for appeal
had expired.
{¶ 3} The board member found that respondent failed to reply to relator’s
investigatory letters and did not respond to the draft of a proposed complaint sent
to her by relator. The board member concluded that respondent’s failures to act
violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), and
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in a
disciplinary investigation or hearing). He recommended that the respondent be
suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio. The board adopted the
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board member.
{¶ 4} On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from
the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ.,
concur.
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents.
__________________
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.
{¶ 5} I respectfully dissent. The majority’s decision to indefinitely suspend
is based on one instance of neglect. Had the respondent answered and participated
in the disciplinary action, it is unlikely that we would have indefinitely suspended
her from the practice of law. The respondent’s default has resulted in such a
recommendation.
{¶ 6} There is an indication in the record that, according to the respondent’s
father, she was suffering from unspecified “mental problems.” The respondent did
not respond to the charges made against her or cooperate with the investigation.
2
January Term, 2002
Perhaps she was unable. I believe these factors, when combined, are sufficient to
place at issue a question of mental illness. Gov.Bar R. V(7)(C) provides:
“If the complaint or answer alleges existing mental illness unsupported by
a journal entry of a court of competent jurisdiction or mental illness otherwise is
placed in issue, the Board or hearing panel, on its own motion or on motion by
either party, may order a medical or psychiatric examination of respondent by one
or more physicians designated by the Board or hearing panel.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 7} I believe that the board should have ordered a psychiatric evaluation
of the respondent to determine her competence and whether her failure to appear
was due to mental problems. Therefore, I respectfully dissent and would remand
this matter to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline with
instructions to make further inquiry into the nature of the “mental problems”
referred to in the record, and if appropriate, to order a psychiatric evaluation of the
respondent.
__________________
Richard Milligan and William W. Emley, Sr., for relator.
__________________
3