Case Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Van Horn

Citation: 2007-Ohio-978

Docket Number: 20061900

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-03-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Van Horn, 113 Ohio St.3d 45, 2007-Ohio-978.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. VAN HORN. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Van Horn, 113 Ohio St.3d 45, 2007-Ohio-978.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2006-1900 – Submitted November 29, 2006 — Decided March 21, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-093. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Darrell Van Horn of Maumee, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0018511, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1972. 
{¶ 2} On December 7, 2005, relator, Toledo Bar Association, charged 
respondent in an amended complaint with three counts of professional 
misconduct.  Respondent was served the complaint, but did not answer, and 
relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master 
commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline granted the motion, making findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 
recommendation, which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
Counts I and II – Dyer-White 
{¶ 3} Meicha Dyer-White retained respondent to file a personal injury 
claim against Toledo Hospital.  Respondent accepted the case on a contingent-fee 
basis and filed suit against the hospital on February 3, 2003.  On June 4, 2003, 
Toledo Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that Dyer-White 
had failed to respond to its requests for admissions.  Respondent responded to the 
motion, asserting that neither he nor his client had received them. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} On August 20, 2003, the trial court granted Dyer-White until 
September 5, 2003, to respond to the requests for admission and until September 
15, 2003, to reply to the motion for summary judgment.  Respondent, however, 
did not respond to either the discovery request or the motion, and pursuant to 
Civ.R. 36(A), the trial court deemed the failure to respond to the requests for 
admissions to be admissions.  (“The matter is admitted unless * * * the party to 
whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a 
written answer * * *”).  On October 27, 2003, the trial court also granted 
summary judgment in favor of Toledo Hospital, citing Dyer-White’s admissions 
that she did not sustain any injury while at the hospital, that none of the hospital’s 
personnel had been negligent, and that Dyer-White did not seek treatment for any 
injury allegedly sustained at the hospital. 
{¶ 5} On November 26, 2003, respondent appealed the order granting 
summary judgment, but he never filed the required assignments of error or a brief 
in support of the appeal.  On March 26, 2004, after having granted two extensions 
for filing a brief, the appellate court dismissed Dyer-White’s appeal. 
{¶ 6} Because of his failure to respond to the requests for admissions and 
the motion for summary judgment, as charged in Count I, the master 
commissioner and board found respondent in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter) and 7-101(A)(2) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to carry out a contract of 
professional employment).  Because respondent failed to file a brief for Dyer-
White’s appeal, as charged in Count II, the master commissioner and board found 
that respondent had again violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101l(A)(2). 
Count III – Braun 
{¶ 7} Linda Braun hired respondent to pursue damages for injuries that 
her minor daughter had sustained in August and September 2000 from three 
separate automobile accidents.  Respondent entered into a contingent-fee 
January Term, 2007 
3 
arrangement with Braun and filed suit on June 20, 2003, but he did not keep 
Braun apprised of progress in the case.  He also failed to respond to the 
defendants’ motions for summary judgment and to dismiss, and he failed to 
appear at the motion hearing, leading the common pleas court to dismiss the 
cause.  Respondent later promised his client that he would take steps to have the 
dismissal order set aside, but he never did. 
{¶ 8} Braun filed a grievance with relator, and relator sent a letter of 
inquiry to respondent on February 1, 2005, asking for a response within the 
succeeding two weeks.  Respondent did not reply.  In March and July 2005, 
relator sent more letters of inquiry, but respondent did not respond to the letters or 
return telephone calls.  In November 2005, relator sent to respondent a notice of 
intent to amend the complaint, advising that he could respond or request a hearing 
within seven days.  Still, respondent did not reply. 
{¶ 9} For his failures to pursue the Braun case as promised and to 
respond during relator’s investigation, the master commissioner and board found 
respondent in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a 
lawyer to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 10} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the master 
commissioner and board weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors of 
respondent’s case.  See Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing 
Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶ 11} Adopting the master commissioner’s report, the board found that 
respondent had engaged in a pattern of misconduct, including neglect and failing 
to provide promised services, and had committed multiple offenses, aggravating 
factors under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d).  Respondent had also failed 
to cooperate in the disciplinary process and had caused seriously injured clients to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
forgo any reparations for their injuries, aggravating factors under BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e) and (h).  In mitigation, the board did not find that 
respondent had acted dishonestly.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b). 
{¶ 12} The master commissioner recommended, on relator’s suggestion, 
that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  The board 
adopted that recommendation. 
{¶ 13} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) 
and 7-101(A)(2) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), as found by the board.  Because 
neglect of legal matters and the failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary 
investigation warrant an indefinite suspension from the practice of law, Columbus 
Bar Assn. v. Torian, 106 Ohio St.3d 14, 2005-Ohio-3216, 829 N.E.2d 1210, ¶ 17, 
we further agree that the recommended sanction is appropriate. 
{¶ 14} Respondent is therefore indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR 
and 
O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
David G. Grude, Myron C. Duhart, and Jonathan B. Cherry, Bar Counsel, 
for relator. 
______________________