Case Title: Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Corrigan

Citation: 2011-Ohio-4731

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-09-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Corrigan, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4731.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2011-OHIO-4731 
GEAUGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. CORRIGAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Corrigan,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4731.] 
Attorney misconduct — Failing to respond to a demand for information by a 
disciplinary authority during an investigation — Six-month suspension, all 
stayed on condition. 
(No. 2011-0706 — Submitted June 21, 2011 — Decided September 22, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-034. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, James G. Corrigan of Shaker Heights, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0029130, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1981.  
On April 12, 2010, relator, Geauga County Bar Association, filed a complaint 
alleging that respondent had failed to cooperate in its investigation of a grievance 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
filed against him by a former client.1  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline conducted a hearing and found that respondent’s 
conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly 
failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during 
an investigation).  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and misconduct 
as well as its recommended sanction of a six-month suspension from the practice 
of law, all stayed on condition.  Having determined that the board’s findings of 
fact and misconduct are supported by clear and convincing evidence, we adopt 
them and conclude that a six-month suspension from the practice of law, all 
stayed on condition, is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 2} The board found that in May 2008, a former client of respondent’s 
filed a grievance with the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association.  Upon 
discovering that respondent’s office was then located in Bainbridge Township, 
Geauga County, the grievance was transferred to the grievance committee of the 
Geauga County Bar Association. 
{¶ 3} Relator sent a letter to respondent at his home address on June 13, 
2008, and sent a second letter to respondent’s home and business addresses on 
October 9, 2008.  Each time, relator sent the letters by both certified and regular 
mail.  A member of the grievance committee testified that a number of the letters 
were returned marked undeliverable or unclaimed.  Relator also attempted to 
reach respondent by phone at least 30 times.  Relator was able to leave a message 
on only one or two occasions—the rest of the time, respondent’s voicemail box 
was full. 
{¶ 4} Respondent admitted receiving relator’s October 15, 2008 letter 
regarding the grievance.  The investigator testified that respondent called on 
                                                 
1 The board did not pursue charges related to the underlying client grievance.  
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
October 31 and left a voicemail indicating that he vaguely recalled the grievant’s 
name and her legal matter.  Respondent stated that he did not have a file for the 
grievant, but that another attorney, whose name could not be understood from the 
voicemail, had it.  He also left a different telephone number for relator to return 
his call.  There was no response to a subsequent letter sent by regular mail and 
certified mail.  Efforts to reach respondent by telephone continued to be 
unsuccessful because respondent’s voicemail boxes were full. 
{¶ 5} Sometime before June 25, 2009, relator was able to leave a message 
about developments in the case, including the upcoming review of the grievance 
at a grievance-committee meeting.  At that meeting, the board found that it had 
probable cause to charge respondent with failing to cooperate in the investigation.  
The next day, respondent called relator’s investigator to apologize for not 
responding sooner, explaining that he is frequently out of the country and does not 
often check his voicemail.  The investigator advised him that the committee had 
decided to file a complaint.  He told respondent that if he sent a letter to the 
committee chairman explaining his failure to respond and seeking an opportunity 
to speak to the entire committee, there was a chance that the committee would 
reconsider its decision. 
{¶ 6} Following the investigator’s advice, respondent sent a letter 
apologizing for his inadequate response, explaining why it had been so difficult to 
contact him, and seeking an opportunity to address the committee.  The chairman 
of the committee sent respondent a letter advising him to appear at the September 
10 committee meeting.  Respondent called just before the meeting to advise the 
committee that he would be 10 to 15 minutes late.  The committee transacted 
other business and waited for respondent for more than an hour, but he did not 
arrive.  When respondent appeared at the committee chairman’s office later that 
day, he was told that he was too late.  Respondent made no further efforts to 
respond to the investigation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 7} Unable to obtain service of relator’s complaint on respondent by 
mail, the board served the complaint on the clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant 
to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Respondent answered the complaint and denied the 
charge against him. 
{¶ 8} Respondent appeared at the hearing on the complaint and testified 
that he was semi-retired and traveled out of the country at least eight months of 
each year and that during that time, his mail was held by the post office.  He said 
that he used his office only for file storage and as the address for some of his 
private financial dealings, and that although mail directed to that address was 
supposed to be forwarded to his home, he had never received any mail forwarded 
from the office address.  Respondent acknowledged that his voicemail box was 
often full and that the messages were deleted automatically after 30 days, but he 
asserted that because he had no clients, he had no reason to monitor his phone 
calls during his travels. 
{¶ 9} Respondent denied that he had knowingly failed to respond to the 
disciplinary investigation and claimed that he had not learned of the grievance 
against him until July 2009.  He maintained that he had missed the grievance-
committee meeting because he had been stuck in heavy traffic, but the panel did 
not find this testimony to be credible. 
{¶ 10} Based upon these findings, the board found that respondent had 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b). 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} In recommending a sanction, the panel and board considered the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in 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.”).  See Stark 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 
818, ¶ 16. 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
{¶ 12} As mitigating factors, the board found that respondent has had no 
prior disciplinary offenses in his 30 years of practice and that he had had no 
dishonest or selfish motive in committing the misconduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a) and (b).  However, the board concluded that the aggravating factors—
including respondent’s lack of cooperation and his refusal to acknowledge the 
wrongful nature of his conduct—outweighed those mitigating factors.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e) and (g). 
{¶ 13} Relator initially planned to recommend that respondent be publicly 
reprimanded for his misconduct, but citing his continued lack of cooperation and 
his failure to accept responsibility for his actions even after the complaint had 
been filed, relator sought a six-month suspension from the practice of law.  The 
board observed that in Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Jaffe, 121 Ohio St.3d 260, 
2009-Ohio-763, 903 N.E.2d 628, ¶ 2-3, 7, we imposed a six-month suspension on 
an attorney who committed comparable conduct in violation of Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G), and in Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Jones, 127 Ohio St.3d 424, 2010-
Ohio-6024, 940 N.E.2d 940, ¶ 5, 7, we imposed a six-month suspension, all 
stayed, on an attorney who committed comparable conduct in violation of 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  Unlike Jaffe and Jones, who each had prior disciplinary 
violations, respondent has no prior disciplinary record.  Jaffe at ¶ 5; Jones at ¶ 1.  
Therefore, the board concluded that a six-month stayed suspension was the 
appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct. 
{¶ 14} We accept the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and agree 
that the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct is a six-month 
suspension fully stayed on the condition that respondent commit no further 
misconduct. 
{¶ 15} Accordingly, we suspend James G. Corrigan from the practice of 
law in Ohio for six months, all stayed on the condition that he commit no further 
misconduct.  If respondent fails to comply with the condition of the stay, the stay 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
will be lifted and respondent will serve the full six-month suspension.  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, LANZINGER, CUPP, 
and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents and would impose a public reprimand. 
__________________ 
Carrabine & Reardon Co., L.P.A., and James R. Flaiz; and Thrasher, 
Dinsmore & Dolan, L.P.A., and Todd C. Hicks, for relator. 
James G. Corrigan, pro se. 
______________________