Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Ames

Citation: 2003-Ohio-2904

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-06-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ames, 99 Ohio St.3d 181, 2003-Ohio-2904.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. AMES. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ames, 99 Ohio St.3d 181, 2003-Ohio-2904.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with six months stayed 
— Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Failure to carry out contract 
of employment. 
(No. 2002-1136 — Submitted January 21, 2003 — Decided June 18, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-70. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On July 12, 2001, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a multicount 
complaint against respondent, Stephen P. Ames, Attorney Registration No. 
0023444, charging numerous violations of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline heard the cause and prepared findings of fact and conclusions of law.  
The panel found no misconduct as to the second Count IV1 and Count V.  
Consequently, we relate only those findings and conclusions germane to the 
violations that respondent was found to have committed in the remaining counts. 
{¶2} 
Counts I and II arose from the respondent’s representation of Larry 
Williams and Richard Mickens, two of three clients incarcerated for various drug 
offenses.  Delorise C. Lucas initially asked respondent to explore the possibility 
of early release for Mickens and the third client.  On August 11, 1997, respondent 
agreed to do so for $750 for each man.  Lucas consented to that amount, which 
she paid to respondent. 
                                                 
1 By mistake, two unrelated counts were both headed as Count IV. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
Respondent learned of Williams’s conviction and secured an 
agreement with Lucas to explore both early release and a new trial.  The fee was 
set at $5,000 and was paid in installments by Lucas.  Respondent also discovered 
that all three convictions included a gun specification that required a prison 
sentence that disqualified the three men from early release. 
{¶4} 
Undeterred, respondent continued to believe that creative 
negotiation with the sentencing judge and prosecutor’s office could achieve 
reduction of the sentences.  Motivating this belief were three things:  (1) 
respondent’s belief that the sentences were unduly harsh, (2) the fact that the 
possession of one gun apparently by one individual had resulted in a gun 
specification for each defendant, and (3) an alleged discrepancy in the amount of 
drugs seized and the amount considered by the judge in sentencing. 
{¶5} 
After reviewing the cases, respondent concluded that he could not 
secure early release or a new trial by any means for any of the defendants.  He 
did, however, continue to accept installment payments from Lucas and continued 
to accept calls from defendant Williams on a weekly basis.  Respondent received 
a total of $7,500, including $2,000 for psychological testing that ultimately was 
not done. 
{¶6} 
Before the disciplinary complaint was filed, respondent, of his own 
accord, refunded $4,500 to Lucas, representing the $2,000 for psychological 
testing and half the fee for Williams.  He also refunded an additional $1,000 after 
the panel hearing. 
{¶7} 
Count III stemmed from respondent’s representation of Theresa 
Endicott in a child-support matter.  While respondent was successful in obtaining 
financial records from the father of Endicott’s child, respondent twice missed 
scheduled hearings.  His client eventually terminated his representation, and 
respondent promptly refunded her entire fee. 
January Term, 2003 
3 
{¶8} 
Finally, as to the first Count IV, Donna Fellure paid respondent 
$225 to prepare a simple will and quitclaim deed.  The deed, however, remained 
unfiled for 17 months. 
{¶9} 
The panel found a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal 
matter entrusted to him) in Counts I and III.  As to Count I, it additionally found a 
violation of DR 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry out a contract of employment).  As 
to Count II, the panel found no violation of DR 2-106(A) (charging an illegal of 
clearly excessive fee), based only on its mistaken belief that no violation of that 
rule had been charged in that count.  Finally, as to the first Count IV, the panel 
found a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3). 
{¶10} In mitigation, the panel stressed that respondent had never been the 
subject of a disciplinary proceeding previously and had completely cooperated 
with this one.  It also noted that respondent had made good-faith efforts to refund 
unearned fees well before the filing of any grievance.  It found that respondent 
possessed high ethical standards and that respondent’s misconduct was 
attributable to an overly busy schedule rather than dishonest or selfish motives. 
{¶11} The panel recommended a public reprimand.  The board adopted 
the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, except that the board found a 
violation of DR 2-106(A) as charged in Count II.  The board recommended a 
public reprimand. 
{¶12} Upon review, we adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  
However, in view of the multiple violations, we find that a more severe sanction, 
an actual suspension, is appropriate. 
{¶13} Therefore, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law 
in Ohio for one year, with six months of the suspension stayed on the conditions 
that respondent refrain from any acts in violation of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility and that respondent pay the costs of these disciplinary proceedings. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, ABELE and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
 
PETER B. ABELE, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting for COOK, J. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. 
{¶14} I respectfully dissent.  Both the panel who heard the case and the 
board recommended a public reprimand.  Because of the multiple offenses, the 
court deemed that a more serious reprimand was warranted.  However, I believe 
that a six-month actual suspension is too harsh in light of the nature of the 
offenses.  In addition, there are mitigating factors that the panel noted, such as the 
prompt refund of fees and the lack of any prior disciplinary action.  I would 
suspend the respondent for one year and stay the entire suspension. 
{¶15} Therefore, I respectfully dissent. 
 
PFEIFER and ABELE, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna M. Anelli, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Charles W. Kettlewell and Charles J. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
__________________