# Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Fox

> Ohio Supreme Court · February 28, 1996 · 74 Ohio St. 3d 585

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11153370

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 28, 1996
- **Citations:** 74 Ohio St. 3d 585; 1996 Ohio 250
- **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/11153370

## Opinion text

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 585.]

CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION V. FOX.
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Fox, 1996-Ohio-250.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Failure to preserve
client’s secrets or confidences—Acceptance of employment in which
lawyer’s own interest may impair professional judgment on behalf of
client—Continuing multiple employment where independent judgment on
any client’s behalf may be adversely affected, without client’s consent
after full disclosure—Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation.
(No. 95-2536—Submitted January 24, 1996—Decided February 28, 1996.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-54.
__________________
{¶ 1} Relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a complaint with the Board
of Commissioners on the Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
(“board”), charging respondent, Norman A. Fox, last known address in Fairview
Park, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0013014, with violations of DR 4-101(B)(2)
(failure to preserve client’s secrets or confidences), 5-101 (acceptance of
employment in which lawyer’s own interest may impair professional judgment on
behalf of client), and 5-105(B) (continuing multiple employment where
independent judgment on any client’s behalf may be adversely affected, without
client’s consent after full disclosure), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (duty to cooperate
in investigation of alleged misconduct). The board served the complaint by
certified mail at respondent’s last known address, but respondent did not answer.
A panel appointed by the board heard the matter on relator’s motion for default,
filed pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 2} Evidence submitted to support the motion for default established that
Willard S. McCarley hired respondent in June 1988 to represent him in a personal
injury action. McCarley had been injured in an automobile accident, as had his
passenger, Scott DeFabbo, whom respondent also agreed to represent. McCarley’s
claim was referred to arbitration, from which he received an adverse verdict and
appealed in May 1990. In June 1990, respondent moved to withdraw as McCarley’s
counsel and, while continuing to represent DeFabbo, requested permission to file a
cross-claim against McCarley. McCarley accused respondent of having used
information gained in confidence to advance DeFabbo’s case.
{¶ 3} Evidence also established that respondent did not reply as requested
to relator’s June 30, 1990 correspondence or to its August 27, 1990 certified letter
inquiring about McCarley’s grievance. Respondent also did not respond to
inquiries made by two investigators assigned by relator to look into McCarley’s
grievance.
{¶ 4} The panel granted the motion for default and found that respondent
had violated DR 4-101(B)(2), 5-101, and 5-105(B), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). The
panel recommended that respondent receive a one-year suspension from the
practice of law.
{¶ 5} The board agreed with the panel’s findings of misconduct, but
recommended that respondent’s license be suspended indefinitely due to his “total
failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process and in order to protect the public.”
__________________
Ramsey, Caputo & Ramsey and Kenneth E. Ramsey; Lavelle & Lavelle and
Neal Lavelle, for relator.
__________________

2
January Term, 1996

Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} Upon review of the record, we concur in the board’s findings of
misconduct and its recommended sanction. Respondent is hereby suspended
indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ.,
concur.
F.E. SWEENEY, J., not participating.
__________________

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11153370. Public record. Not legal advice.