Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Meros

Citation: 1998-Ohio-522

Docket Number: 19980712

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-09-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MEROS. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Meros (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Eighteen-month suspension — Engaging in 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Failing to preserve 
confidences of a client — Asserting a position or taking actions merely to 
harass or maliciously injure another — Practicing law in a jurisdiction 
where to do so would be in violation of regulations in that jurisdiction. 
(No. 98-712 — Submitted  June 10, 1998 — Decided September 23, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-74. 
 
On October 10, 1995, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a three-
count complaint charging respondent, Thomas L. Meros of Cleveland, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0005345, with violating several Disciplinary Rules.  
After respondent filed an answer, the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of  the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
The panel found with respect to count one that while his client, Layla 
Shaheen, was in prison, respondent settled her personal injury action for $16,000.  
Out of the proceeds respondent paid certain expenses of  Shaheen and, according 
to Shaheen, made other distributions that she claimed were not authorized.  
Shaheen filed criminal charges against respondent for theft, but a grand jury 
declined to indict respondent.  In August 1993, respondent signed cognovit notes 
in favor of  Shaheen in the amount of $27,785, allegedly representing  the 
settlement proceeds and other money the respondent owed to her.  Shaheen 
brought an action on the promissory notes and obtained a judgment.  Respondent 
then brought an action against Shaheen, against the attorney who confessed 
 
2
judgment, and against several judges.  The panel concluded that respondent’s 
conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects 
upon his fitness to practice law), 4-101 (failing to preserve the confidences of a 
client), and 7-102(A)(1) (asserting a position or taking actions merely to harass or 
maliciously injure another). 
 
The panel found that relator failed to prove the allegations in count two.  
With respect to count three, the panel found that Patricia Lemley of West Virginia 
employed respondent to represent her in a civil rights action.  Respondent 
prepared and signed a complaint captioned in the United States District Court for 
the Northern District of West Virginia and mailed it to Lemley to verify the facts 
stated therein.  He told her not to file the complaint without a motion for him to 
appear pro hac vice.  Lemley filed the complaint.  Respondent then told Lemley 
that she would have to hire local counsel for him to work with because he was not 
licensed to practice in West Virginia.  Lemley obtained an affidavit from a local 
attorney saying that because of the parties involved, no attorney in the county 
would agree to be local counsel.  Respondent did not file the affidavit with a 
nonresident attorney statement as required, nor did he file a motion to appear pro 
hac vice.  The complaint was ultimately dismissed.  The panel concluded that 
respondent’s conduct violated DR 3-101 (practicing law in a jurisdiction where to 
do so would be in violation of regulations in that jurisdiction). 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law for eighteen months.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
3
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Harald F. Craig III, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Ford L. Noble, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for eighteen 
months.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., 
concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., not participating.