Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Washington

Citation: 1997-Ohio-186

Docket Number: 19962787

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-06-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Washington. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Washington (1997), ____Ohio St.3d____.] 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Six-month suspension -- Engaging 
in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice -- 
Neglecting an entrusted legal matter. 
 
(No. 96-2787 -- Submitted February 19, 1997 -- Decided June 11, 
1997.) 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-38. 
 
On April 15, 1996, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a 
complaint charging that respondent, William T. Washington of Dayton, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0051948, had violated several Disciplinary 
Rules.  As a result of a hearing on November 15, 1996, a panel of  the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board”) found that after having been appointed by the common pleas court 
in January 1994 to represent Victor Manuel Castro on his appeal of a 
criminal conviction, respondent requested three extensions to file his 
appellate brief.  In his third extension request, respondent said that he 
“should complete the brief before Thursday of this week.”  During the 
 
2
extended briefing time respondent did not pursue the appeal.  Instead, he 
engaged attorney Harry Sykes of Louisville, Kentucky, a lawyer not 
admitted in Ohio, to handle the appeal and sent him the case file.  
Respondent testified that he knew at the time that Sykes was a drug addict 
and gambler, but that he did not know the extent of Sykes’s addiction or that 
Sykes was practicing out of a barber shop.  When respondent failed to file a 
brief after the third extension, the court of appeals in August 1994 removed 
respondent as counsel and appointed another attorney to represent Castro.  
Castro ultimately lost his appeal. 
 
In September 1995, Castro filed a grievance with relator alleging that 
respondent had never contacted him or notified him of the appellate court’s 
order removing respondent as his counsel.  Relator received no answer to its 
September and October 1995 certified mail inquires of respondent with 
respect to Castro’s allegations.  On January 31, 1996, in response to a 
second subpoena, respondent appeared at relator’s office for a deposition.  
While relator was attempting to investigate the matter, respondent, knowing 
that he had been removed as Castro’s counsel, contacted Castro and told 
 
3
him that if he would withdraw his grievance, respondent would handle the 
appeal. 
 
By way of mitigation, respondent testified that during the time of 
these events his wife had given birth to a brain-damaged child who required 
ten operations, and that respondent resided in an apartment house on an 
unpaved road and had trouble receiving mail.  Respondent offered three 
witnesses who testified as to his good character and legal ability. 
Respondent then stated that he had moved permanently to Seattle, 
Washington, with his family, but intended to continue to practice in Ohio.  
 
The panel concluded that by accepting employment in an indigent 
appeal, never pursuing the appeal, and then attempting to assign the case 
without court approval to a drug-impaired attorney, not licensed in Ohio, 
respondent clearly violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a 
legal matter entrusted to him).  The panel recommended that respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law for six months.  The board adopted the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
_______________________________________ 
 
4
 
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
William T. Washington, pro se. 
_______________________________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  By engaging a co-counsel without 
determining whether he would be able to perform his duties, respondent 
neglected the legal matter entrusted to him by the court.  By being less than 
honest in his reasons for time extensions, respondent engaged in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice. Respondent is hereby suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio for six months.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
F.E. SWEENEY, J., dissents and would publicly reprimand respondent.