Disciplinary Counsel v. Meade , 127 Ohio St. 3d 393 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Meade, 
    127 Ohio St.3d 393
    , 
    2010-Ohio-6209
    .]
    DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MEADE.
    [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Meade, 
    127 Ohio St.3d 393
    , 
    2010-Ohio-6209
    .]
    Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Failure to cooperate in disciplinary
    investigation — Failure to act diligently in representing client — Failure
    to deliver documents to former client — Indefinite suspension.
    (No. 2010-1494 — Submitted October 13, 2010 — Decided December 22, 2010.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
    Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-021.
    __________________
    Per Curiam.
    {¶ 1} Respondent, Karen Kaye Meade of Parkman, Ohio, Attorney
    
    Registration No. 0017600,
     was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1983.
    {¶ 2} On February 8, 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a six-
    count complaint charging respondent with professional misconduct involving the
    representation of clients and termination of that representation and misconduct
    arising from her failure to respond to five disciplinary grievances filed against
    her. Relator attempted to serve respondent with a copy of its complaint by
    certified mail at her home and post office box, but the letter addressed to her
    home was returned because she had no mail receptacle, and the letter addressed to
    her post office box was returned marked unclaimed. On March 12, 2010, the
    clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted service on respondent’s behalf, in
    accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). Respondent did not answer the complaint
    or otherwise appear in the proceeding, and relator moved for default pursuant to
    Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).
    {¶ 3} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners
    on Grievances and Discipline granted relator’s motion, making findings of
    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    misconduct and recommending that respondent be indefinitely suspended from
    the practice of law.        The master commissioner further recommended that
    respondent’s reinstatement be conditioned upon proof from her treating medical
    professionals and the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) that she has
    followed all treatment recommendations and that she is able to return to the
    competent, ethical, and professional practice of law. The master commissioner
    also recommended that upon reinstatement, respondent be required to complete
    one year of monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9). The board adopted
    the master commissioner’s report in its entirety. For the reasons that follow, we
    adopt the board’s recommendation and indefinitely suspend respondent from the
    practice of law in Ohio with reinstatement contingent upon the stated conditions.
    Misconduct
    Counts One, Four, and Six
    {¶ 4} In March 2009, relator received a grievance from an attorney who
    represented one of respondent’s former clients, alleging that respondent refused to
    provide him with the client’s file.       The following month, relator received a
    grievance from another attorney who represented a defendant in an action filed by
    respondent. That attorney questioned respondent’s competency in light of the fact
    that she had listed the FBI, the CIA, and Radio Martinique as third-party plaintiffs
    in the suit against his client.
    {¶ 5} In June 2009, assistant disciplinary counsel spoke with respondent
    to advise her of concerns about her mental health and general well-being and
    suggested that she contact OLAP. Respondent agreed to contact OLAP but never
    did so.
    {¶ 6} Relator scheduled three separate times to depose respondent, but
    respondent never appeared. Respondent offered excuses for her failure to appear
    at the depositions, claiming that her vehicle was experiencing mechanical
    2
    January Term, 2010
    problems and that a gag order in federal court prevented her from testifying about
    “Blackwater.”
    {¶ 7} Respondent was personally served with a subpoena requiring her
    to appear and be deposed on November 10, 2009, to answer questions about these
    grievances, as well as the grievances underlying Counts Two, Three, and Five,
    discussed below. On the morning of the scheduled deposition, respondent called
    to advise relator that she would not appear, because she wished to obtain legal
    counsel.      Relator advised her that she had 30 days to obtain counsel and
    reschedule her deposition, and sent her a letter by certified and ordinary mail
    confirming that conversation.      Although the certified letter was returned
    unclaimed, the letter sent by ordinary mail was not returned and is presumed to
    have been delivered, but respondent never contacted relator to reschedule her
    deposition.
    {¶ 8} Based upon these facts, the master commissioner and board
    concluded, and we agree, that by failing to appear for her November 10, 2009
    deposition and subsequently failing to reschedule the deposition, respondent
    violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that
    adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
    (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation) with respect to
    these grievances.
    Count Two
    {¶ 9} In June 2009, an attorney who represented a landlord in an eviction
    proceeding against respondent filed a grievance questioning respondent’s mental
    competency based upon her (1) inclusion of the FBI, the CIA, and Radio
    Martinique as third-party plaintiffs in the eviction action, (2) counterclaim for
    $650,000,000 in damages, (3) assertions that she worked for the FBI and CIA, (4)
    claims that people were improperly entering her home, tampering with her locks,
    3
    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    and accessing her computer,and (4) assertions that there were FBI and CIA files
    stored in her basement that represented a national security issue.
    {¶ 10} On September 25, 2009, relator sent a letter of inquiry to
    respondent by certified mail. Although respondent signed for the letter, she did
    not submit a response. Other letters sent to respondent by certified mail were
    returned unclaimed.
    {¶ 11} The master commissioner and board concluded that respondent’s
    conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). We accept these
    findings of fact and misconduct.
    Counts Three and Four
    {¶ 12} In September 2009, another former client filed a grievance against
    respondent. Despite the fact that relator personally served respondent with a letter
    of inquiry regarding the grievance, respondent failed to respond. On June 2,
    2010, relator moved the board to dismiss Count Three of its complaint, noting that
    the grievant no longer wished to pursue her grievance and had declined to provide
    an affidavit in support of the default motion. The board granted that motion. As
    discussed in Count One, however, the master commissioner and board found that
    respondent’s conduct with respect to the November 10, 2009 deposition violated
    Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
    Counts Five and Six
    {¶ 13} A woman retained respondent to represent her in an immigration
    matter. In April 2009, the presiding immigration judge issued a decision ordering
    that the woman “be removed from the United States to Guyana.” The client paid
    respondent $2,500 to appeal this removal order, but respondent missed the filing
    deadline by one day and the appeal was dismissed as untimely.
    {¶ 14} The client retained new counsel and sent respondent a letter
    requesting that respondent forward her file to her new attorney. Respondent sent
    a letter advising that her new counsel could not receive a copy of her file at that
    4
    January Term, 2010
    time.   Although the client moved the immigration court to reopen her case,
    alleging that respondent had provided ineffective assistance of counsel, the
    immigration court denied that motion in December 2009. As of May 4, 2010,
    respondent had not refunded any of the $2,500 the client had paid for the appeal
    or provided her or her new counsel with a copy of her file.
    {¶ 15} Based upon these facts, the master commissioner and board found
    that respondent’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act
    with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.16(d)
    (requiring a lawyer withdrawing from representation to take all reasonably
    necessary steps to protect the client’s interest including delivering to the client all
    papers and property to which the client is entitled), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a
    lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
    justice). And, as discussed in Count One, the master commissioner and board
    found that respondent’s conduct with respect to the November 10, 2009
    deposition violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). We accept
    these findings of fact and misconduct.
    Sanction
    {¶ 16} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider
    relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the
    sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 
    96 Ohio St.3d 424
    , 
    2002-Ohio-4743
    , 
    775 N.E.2d 818
    , ¶ 16.                 In making a final
    determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors
    listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on
    Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
    Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 
    115 Ohio St.3d 473
    , 
    2007-Ohio-5251
    , 
    875 N.E.2d 935
    , ¶ 21.
    {¶ 17} The evidence submitted with respondent’s motion for default
    clearly and convincingly demonstrates that respondent has failed to cooperate in
    5
    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    multiple disciplinary investigations and that by failing to do so, she has engaged
    in conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law. Her failure to act
    with reasonable diligence and promptness resulted in the dismissal of her client’s
    appeal of a deportation ruling. Further exacerbating this conduct, respondent
    failed to deliver the client’s file to her new attorney, who sought relief from that
    judgment, alleging that the client had received ineffective assistance of counsel.
    {¶ 18} As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had
    engaged in multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process,
    refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct, and harmed
    vulnerable clients. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d), (e), (g), and (h). The board
    found that respondent’s lack of a prior disciplinary record was a mitigating factor.
    BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). The board also recognized that respondent may
    have been a victim of child abuse and domestic violence and claimed to have had
    a parent who had been an alcoholic and who had committed suicide. However, it
    attributed little mitigating effect to those circumstances, noting that the record did
    not contain medical evidence to establish that respondent had been diagnosed
    with a mental disability or that any disability that might exist was causally related
    to her misconduct. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).
    {¶ 19} Relator argued in favor of an indefinite suspension for
    respondent’s    misconduct.        The    master    commissioner      accepted    this
    recommendation but stated that he would condition any reinstatement upon proof
    from respondent’s treating medical professionals and OLAP that her mental-
    health problems have been resolved, that she has followed all treatment
    recommendations, and that she is able to return to the competent, ethical, and
    professional practice of law. The master commissioner recommended also that
    upon reinstatement, respondent be required to complete one year of monitored
    probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9).             The board adopted this
    recommendation.
    6
    January Term, 2010
    {¶ 20} We have previously recognized that neglect of an entrusted legal
    matter coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation
    warrants an indefinite suspension. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 
    124 Ohio St.3d 269
    , 
    2010-Ohio-136
    , 
    921 N.E.2d 636
    , ¶ 10; Cleveland Bar Assn. v.
    Davis, 
    121 Ohio St.3d 337
    , 
    2009-Ohio-764
    , 
    904 N.E.2d 517
    , ¶ 17.
    {¶ 21} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and
    mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct,
    we adopt the board’s recommended sanction.
    {¶ 22} Accordingly, Karen Kaye Meade is indefinitely suspended from
    the practice of law in the state of Ohio. Any petition for reinstatement must
    include proof from respondent’s treating medical professionals and OLAP that
    any mental-health issues have been resolved, that she has followed all treatment
    recommendations, and that she is able to return to the competent, ethical, and
    professional practice of law. Upon reinstatement, respondent shall complete one
    year of monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9). Costs are taxed
    to respondent.
    Judgment accordingly.
    BROWN,     C.J.,   and    PFEIFER,       LUNDBERG   STRATTON,   O’CONNOR,
    O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.
    __________________
    Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger, Senior
    Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
    ______________________
    7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2010-1494

Citation Numbers: 2010 Ohio 6209, 127 Ohio St. 3d 393

Judges: Brown, Pfeifer, Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp

Filed Date: 12/22/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024