Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Jones ( 1993 )


Menu:
  •              OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
    Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
    1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
    Thomas J. Moyer.
    Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
    Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
    Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
    Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
    Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
    NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
    full texts of the opinions after they have been released
    electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
    to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
    Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
    The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
    and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
    volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.
    Cleveland Bar Association v. Jones.
    [Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Jones (1993),         Ohio
    St.3d         .
    Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Suspended one-year suspension
    with conditions -- Neglecting an entrusted legal matter --
    Failing to carry out contract for professional services.
    (No. 93-1773 -- Submitted October 12, 1993 -- Decided
    December 29, 1993.)
    On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
    Grievances and Discipline of the Ohio Supreme Court, No. 92-65.
    In a complaint filed December 7, 1992, relator, Cleveland
    Bar Association, charged respondent, Willie K. Jones of
    Cleveland, Attorney 
    Registration No. 0031440,
     with two counts
    each of having violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted
    legal matter) and 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out contract
    for professional services). Respondent failed to answer, and
    relator moved for default in accordance with former Gov.Bar R.
    V(13)(B) (now V[6][F]). A panel of the Board of Commmissioners
    on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board")
    granted the motion, but also conducted a hearing to consider
    the degree of discipline to impose. Respondent appeared at
    that proceeding.
    Evidence submitted in support of the motion for default
    and at the hearing established that Henry L. Talbert had
    retained respondent to evict a tenant in August 1989.
    Respondent quoted a fee of $100 plus court costs, and Talbert
    paid $35 specifically for the filing of a three-day notice of
    eviction with the Housing Division of the Cleveland Municipal
    Court. Respondent never filed the notice or performed any
    other service for Talbert.
    Evidence also established that Carolyn D. Little retained
    respondent in May 1989 to represent her in a consumer dispute
    over an automobile and to defend her against efforts to
    repossess the car. Respondent quoted a fee of $800, and Little
    paid respondent $400, with the remaining $400 to be paid upon
    resolution of these matters. Little attempted to contact
    respondent during the next two months without success. In
    August 1989, respondent represented that he would file a
    complaint for the consumer dispute, but he never did.
    Thereafter, a complaint was filed against Little by the bank
    that had loaned her the money to buy the car. Respondent
    failed to answer this complaint, and a default judgment was
    entered against Little. Little asked respondent twice to
    refund the $400 she had paid him, but respondent refused to
    repay more than $300.
    Based on the foregoing, the panel found that respondent
    had violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged in both counts
    of the complaint. Respondent, a forty-four-year-old
    sole-practitioner whose sight impairment apparently prevents
    him from reading without someone's assistance, offered little
    evidence to explain his misconduct. Respondent also seemed to
    have no appreciation for the seriousness of the disciplinary
    proceedings or the panel's findings.
    The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from
    the practice of law for one year, but that this period be
    suspended on the following conditions:
    "1. Respondent [shall] actively seek and establish a
    relationship with an attorney, or in an office where other
    attorneys are practicing (private or government), where he will
    receive counsel[ing], monitoring, and advice; this is to be
    accomplished within three months of the date of the suspension.
    "2. The Cleveland Bar Association [shall] appoint a
    monitor forthwith to oversee the proposed change in the method
    by which the Respondent practices law.
    "3. [If], [a]t the end of the three month[] period[,] an
    association as contemplated above has not been established to
    the satisfaction of the monitor, the balance of the suspension
    from the practice of law * * * will be imposed."
    The board adopted the panel's findings and its
    recomendation.
    Richard R. Endress, Paul C. Morrision and James F. Sexton,
    for relator.
    Willie K. Jones, pro se.
    Per Curiam. We agree with and adopt the board's findings
    and recommendation. Respondent is ordered suspended from the
    practice of law in Ohio for one year, but the suspension period
    is suspended on the above conditions set forth by the board.
    Costs taxed to respondent.
    Judgment accordingly.
    Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright and Resnick,
    JJ., concur.
    F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents and would suspend respondent
    for one year without probation.
    Pfeifer, J., dissents and would publicly reprimand
    respondent.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1993-1773

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/29/1993

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014