Case Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Jaynes

Citation: 1993-Ohio-40

Docket Number: 19922163

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1993-05-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
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. Whitten, 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.                                            
                                                                                 
Cuyahoga County Bar Association v. Jaynes.                                       
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Jaynes (1993),     Ohio St.                  
3d     .]                                                                        
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension --                       
     Suspension to commence from August 1, 1990, the date of a                   
     previous indefinite suspension arising from misconduct                      
     during the subject period of time -- Neglect of an                          
     entrusted legal matter -- Engaging in conduct involving                     
     dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation -- Failure                   
     to seek the lawful objectives of client -- Failure to                       
     carry out contract of employment -- Refusal to assist in                    
     disciplinary investigation.                                                 
     (No. 92-2163 -- Submitted January 6, 1993 -- Decided May                    
19, 1993.)                                                                       
     On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on                        
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 92-17.                       
     This disciplinary action is before the court on a                           
two-count complaint filed by relator, Cuyahoga County Bar                        
Association, on February 19, 1992, against respondent, Thomas                    
L. Jaynes, last known residence in Northfield, Ohio, Attorney                    
Registration No. 0024441, alleging numerous violations of the                    
Code of Professional Responsibility.                                             
     Relator filed a motion for default on July 6, 1992.  The                    
motion was filed as a result of the failure of respondent to                     
respond in any manner to the complaint filed against him.  On                    
July 24, 1992, a hearing was held by a panel of the Board of                     
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court                  
("board").  Respondent failed to appear.                                         
     In regard to Count I, in 1986, Kimberly A. Berry retained                   
respondent to pursue a legal matter concerning alleged improper                  
automobile repairs.  Berry paid respondent $150.  She attempted                  
to communicate with respondent during the years 1986, 1987 and                   
1988, but he never responded and never pursued any legal action                  
on her behalf.  Respondent was charged with violations of DR                     
6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter entrusted) and former                     
Gov. Bar R. V(5)(a), now Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G) (refusal to assist                  
in disciplinary investigation).                                                  
     In regard to Count II, in 1987, Charles Sago retained                       
respondent to seek an annulment of Sago's marriage.  Respondent                  
later advised Sago that he had filed annulment papers with the                   
court.  As a result of his retaining another attorney, Sago                      
discovered that respondent had never filed any papers on Sago's                  
behalf.  Sago was unsuccessful in his attempts to receive                        
return of his monies from respondent.                                            
     Respondent was charged with violations of DR 1-102(A)(4)                    
(misconduct by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,                  
deceit or misrepresentation); 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal                    
matter entrusted to him); 7-101(A)(1) (failure to seek the                       
lawful objectives of his client); and 7-101(A)(2) (failure to                    
carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client                    
for professional services).                                                      
     Concerning both counts, numerous attempts were made by                      
relator to allow respondent to reply to the charges against him                  
and to attend the investigatory hearings.  Respondent failed to                  
respond.  No answer was filed to the formal complaint filed                      
with the board against respondent, nor was a motion for an                       
extension of time to file an answer ever filed.                                  
     The panel of the board found that relator had met its                       
burden under Gov. Bar R. V(6)(F)(2) and granted the relator's                    
motion for default.  The panel found respondent in violation of                  
the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules.                                           
     Because respondent failed to appear before the panel, no                    
mitigation was offered into evidence.  Respondent has been                       
under an indefinite suspension since August 1, 1990.  See Akron                  
Bar Assn. v. Jaynes (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 9, 557 N.E.2d 1204,                    
case No. 90-402.                                                                 
     The panel noted that the misconduct charged in this                         
complaint occurred during the same period of time as that                        
charged in his previous indefinite suspension and that if the                    
charges herein had been brought at that time, they would have                    
been incorporated into those that resulted in his indefinite                     
suspension.  Accordingly, the panel recommended that respondent                  
be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and that the                  
suspension be ordered to commence from August 1, 1990, the date                  
of the indefinite suspension in case No. 90-402.  The board                      
adopted the findings of fact and the recommendation of the                       
panel.                                                                           
                                                                                 
     Martha H. Krebs, Lester S. Potash and C. Terrence Kapp,                     
for relator.                                                                     
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  We concur in the findings of fact,                             
conclusions of law, and recommendation of the the board.  In                     
this case, the respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from                  
the practice of law in Ohio commencing from August 1, 1990.                      
Costs taxed to respondent.                                                       
                                    Judgment accordingly.                        
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright,  Resnick, F.E.                  
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.