Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Pringle

Citation: 1996-Ohio-220

Docket Number: 19952557

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-03-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
Akron Bar Association v. Pringle. 
1 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Pringle (1996), _____Ohio St.3d_____.] 
2 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Six-month suspension -- Neglect of 
3 
an entrusted legal matter -- Failure to cooperate in disciplinary 
4 
investigation. 
5 
 
(No. 95-2557 -- Submitted January 24, 1996 -- Decided March 6, 
6 
1996.) 
7 
 
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
8 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-01. 
9 
 
On February 22, 1994, relator, the Akron Bar Association (“bar 
10 
association”), filed a four-count complaint before the Board of 
11 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio 
12 
(“board”), against respondent, Elbert R. Pringle of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
13 
Registration No. 0031357.  Count One alleged Pringle, while representing  
14 
Shebbi Smart in connection with a dispute with the Department of Housing 
15 
and Urban Development, violated DR 1-102(A)(1)(violating a disciplinary 
16 
rule), 6-101(A)(2)(handling a legal matter without preparation adequate in 
17 
the circumstances), 6-101(A)(3)(neglecting an entrusted legal matter) and 7-
18 
101(A)(2)(failing to carry out a contract of employment). 
19 
 
2
 
In Count Two the bar association alleged that Pringle, in representing 
1 
Lawrence Sheffield in a dispute with his employer, General Motors 
2 
Corporation, violated DR 1-102(A)(1), 6-101(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3) and 7-
3 
101(A)(2).  In Count Three, the bar association alleged that Pringle’s 
4 
conduct with respect to Smart and Sheffield violated DR 1-
5 
102(A)(6)(engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon his fitness to 
6 
practice law).  In Count Four the bar association alleged that Pringle 
7 
violated Gov. Bar R.V(4)(G), by failing to cooperate with the  bar 
8 
association’s investigation of the complaints of Smart and Sheffield. 
9 
 
On March 16, 1994 Pringle filed an answer to the complaint in which 
10 
he admitted some of the factual allegations, disputed others, and demanded 
11 
a hearing.  A hearing on the complaint was scheduled for March 8, 1995 
12 
 
Prior to the hearing, Pringle failed to respond both to the bar 
13 
association’s request for document production and to the board’s order 
14 
compelling production.  In the same period, Pringle failed to respond timely 
15 
to the bar association’s request for admissions and interrogatories, and 
16 
failed to attend a deposition scheduled for him.  As a result, both the 
17 
deposition and the formal hearing were continued. 
18 
 
3
 
The panel of the board held its formal hearing on August 22, 1995 
1 
and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The panel found that 
2 
with respect to Pringle’s representation of Smart, Pringle violated DR 6-
3 
101(A)(3) by neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him.  In August 1992, 
4 
Ms. Shebbi Smart engaged Pringle to represent her in a dispute with the 
5 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”).  On the basis of 
6 
what a HUD official told her, Smart believed that a statute of limitations 
7 
required her to take some action with respect to this dispute by November 1, 
8 
1992. Pringle received a fee of $400 from Smart, which he believed was to 
9 
cover only his initial review of the documents and the preparation of a 
10 
complaint.  Smart believed that the $400 fee was to cover all expenses 
11 
including litigation.  Pringle failed to file any action on behalf of Smart.  He 
12 
also failed to return any of the approximately twenty telephone calls Smart 
13 
made to him from the end of August through December 1992.  When Smart 
14 
filed suit against Pringle in small claims court in February 1993, seeking a 
15 
return of the $400, Pringle attempted to send Smart her complete file by 
16 
certified mail.  He enclosed a letter advising Smart that he would no longer 
17 
represent her because she had filed suit against him.  The United States 
18 
 
4
Postal Service returned the package containing the file and the letter to 
1 
Pringle with the notation, “unclaimed.”  Pringle did not attempt to remail 
2 
the package even though the postal service had provided him with Smart’s 
3 
new address.  The board found that Pringle never returned the $400 to 
4 
Smart. 
5 
 
The panel dismissed Counts Two and Three, involving the alleged 
6 
violations with respect to Pringle’s representation of Sheffield and with 
7 
respect to Pringle’s alleged pattern of  misconduct.  As to Count Four, the 
8 
panel found that Pringle violated Gov. Bar R.V(4)(G) by failing to 
9 
cooperate in the investigation of the complaints against him and obstructed 
10 
the investigation by refusing to attend a scheduled deposition, answer 
11 
interrogatories, and respond to requests for admission.  The panel 
12 
recommended that Pringle be suspended from the practice of law for six 
13 
months, but that this sanction be suspended upon the conditions that Pringle 
14 
repay the fees that Smart paid to him and meet with a representative of the 
15 
Cleveland or Akron Bar Association for five hours of instruction on an 
16 
attorney’s obligation to cooperate with disciplinary investigations. 
17 
 
5
 
The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law 
1 
and recommendation. 
2 
_________________ 
3 
 
Mark B. Merklin, for relator. 
4 
 
Elbert R. Pringle, pro se. 
5 
__________________ 
6 
 
Per Curiam.  Upon review of the record, we concur with the board’s 
7 
findings of fact and conclusions of law.  However, we find that the 
8 
respondent’s failure to cooperate with the bar association and the board 
9 
during the investigation of these matters warrants a more severe sanction.  
10 
Respondent was on notice that under facts similar to these, neglecting a 
11 
legal matter entrusted to counsel and failing to cooperate in the ensuing 
12 
disciplinary investigation, we have previously indefinitely suspended an 
13 
attorney from the practice of law.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Leibold (1990), 
14 
53 Ohio St.3d 128, 559 N.E.2d 749.  Failure to cooperate has itself 
15 
warranted at least a public reprimand.  Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Dyck 
16 
(1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 68; 570 N.E.2d 1105, Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
17 
Allanson (1995) 72 Ohio St.3d 228, 648 N.E.2d 1340, (where the attorney 
18 
 
6
also failed to timely register).  We can not tolerate such a failure to 
1 
cooperate as seen in this record.  Accordingly, we order that the respondent, 
2 
Elbert R. Pringle, be suspended from the practice of law for six months.  
3 
Costs taxed to the respondent. 
4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
5 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, 
6 
JJ., concur. 
7 
 
RESNICK, J., dissents and would order a six-month suspension, stayed, 
8 
conditioned on restitution and full compliance. 
9 
 
10