Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rollins

Citation: 1999-Ohio-359

Docket Number: 19981307

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-01-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rollins, 84 Ohio St.3d 408, 1999-Ohio-359.] 
 
 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROLLINS. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rollins (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 408.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension — Neglect of legal 
matters — Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 98-1307 — Submitted August 19, 1998 — Decided January 27, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-41. 
 
While employed as a labor negotiator for Cuyahoga County, respondent, 
Myers Rollins, Jr. of Twinsburg, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0030767, 
practiced law part-time.  During the period from 1989 through 1996, respondent 
undertook and failed to complete the representation of a number of his clients.  As 
a result of grievances filed by several of those clients, relator, Cleveland Bar 
Association, filed a nine-count amended complaint against respondent on  July 31, 
1997.  Respondent filed an answer, and the matter was submitted to a panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board”). 
 
After receiving stipulations and testimony at a hearing on April 16, 1998, 
the panel found with respect to count one that in March 1989, Vanessa Schibley 
hired respondent to handle her mother’s estate and respondent presented the will 
for probate.  In July 1990, the court appointed an executor for the estate contingent 
on a bond’s being posted, but respondent never posted a bond.  For several years 
thereafter respondent took no action in the case and did not reply to inquiries 
about the estate.  Finally, in May 1994, he turned over papers regarding the estate 
to another attorney hired by Schibley.  The panel concluded that respondent’s 
inaction violated DR 6-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not handle a matter without 
 
 
2
adequate preparation) and (3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal 
matter). 
 
In considering count two, the panel found that the respondent did not 
answer any of several attempts by the relator to contact him about the Schibley 
grievance, and concluded that this conduct violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no 
attorney shall refuse to assist or testify in a disciplinary investigation). 
 
The panel found in considering count three of the complaint that Pauletta 
Williams employed respondent to represent her in a divorce action. Respondent 
filed the case in March 1996, but the court later dismissed it for want of 
prosecution.  When the relator attempted to investigate the grievance filed by 
Williams, respondent failed to respond.  The panel concluded that respondent had 
again violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
 
The facts relating to count four as found by the panel were that in February 
1993, Barbara Hayes employed respondent to handle the estate of her deceased 
husband.  In May 1994, respondent filed an application to probate the will and an 
application for authority to administer the estate.  A motion to remove Hayes as 
executor for failure to file the inventory due in August 1994 was dismissed after 
respondent made the appropriate filing.  However, Hayes was later removed as 
executor when respondent failed to timely file the account due in April 1995.  
Respondent also failed to attend a hearing on the motion for concealment in which 
the administrator who succeeded Hayes alleged that respondent received fees for 
work not performed.  As a result, the motion was granted and respondent’s fees 
were disallowed.  The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-
101(A)(3), and because he failed to cooperate in the investigation, it concluded 
that he also violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
 
 
3
 
The facts supporting count five as found by the panel were that in December 
1992, Dana Garcia retained respondent to pursue her claim arising out of an 
automobile accident.  Respondent filed the complaint and a jury demand in 
December 1994, but did not appear at the initial case management conference.  
The court rescheduled the conference and warned that respondent’s failure to 
appear a second time might result in dismissal.  Respondent, who did not inform 
Garcia of either conference, failed to appear, and the action was dismissed with 
prejudice.  Under these facts the panel again concluded that respondent violated 
DR 6-101(A)(3). 
 
Count six involved a complaint that respondent filed in December 1994 on 
behalf of Garcia against the Woolworth Company.  Respondent did not appear at 
the case management conference, nor did he appear at the pretrial in the matter.  In 
September 1995, the judge granted Garcia’s motion to terminate the services of 
respondent.  The panel concluded that by these actions respondent again violated 
DR 6-101(A)(3). 
 
Counts seven and eight involved respondent’s suspension from the practice 
of law on August 12, 1996 for failure to meet his continuing legal education 
requirements.  In re Report of the Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn. (1996), 76 
Ohio St.3d 1454, 668 N.E.2d 1387.  The panel found on count seven that in 
December 1996, respondent filed a complaint against Ameritech on behalf of Lisa 
Stunek.  It further found that in March 1997, the complaint was dismissed solely 
on the ground that respondent had been suspended from the practice of law.  Then, 
considering the evidence in count eight, the panel found that in January 1997, 
respondent entered an appearance on behalf of Kenneth Williams, a defendant in a 
case in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County.  The panel concluded 
that in each of the Stunek and Williams matters, respondent’s actions violated DR 
 
 
4
1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration 
of justice) and (6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects 
upon his ability to practice law).  Because he failed to withdraw as counsel, the 
panel concluded that in the Stunek and Williams cases, respondent violated DR 2-
110(B)(2) (a lawyer shall withdraw if his continued employment would result in 
the violation of a Disciplinary Rule), and in the Stunek case, Gov.Bar R. 
V(8)(E)(1) (failing to perform the duties of an attorney who is suspended). 
 
Finally, with respect to count nine, the panel found that in December 1994, 
respondent filed a complaint on behalf of Pam McMiller for personal injury 
damages.  He then failed to appear at a pretrial conference and a subsequent 
pretrial conference, and the case was dismissed.  The panel concluded that with 
respect to McMiller, respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3), and 1-102(A)(5) and 
(6). 
 
In mitigation, the panel received testimony regarding the quality of  
respondent’s work for Cuyahoga County, and finding little evidence of harm to his 
clients in the nine counts presented to it, the panel recommended that respondent 
be suspended from the practice of law for one year to commence immediately after 
respondent’s current suspension is terminated.  The board adopted the findings 
and conclusions of the panel, and, in addition, as to count seven, the Stunek 
matter, the board found a violation of DR 3-101(B) (practicing in a jurisdiction in 
violation of the regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction). 
 
The board also adopted the recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Daniel W. Hammer and Kevin M Magnuson, for relator. 
 
J. Michael Drain, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
 
5
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  Neglect 
of legal matters and a failure to cooperate in the ensuing investigation have 
generally warranted an indefinite suspension. Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lieser 
(1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 488, 683 N.E.2d 1148, and cases cited therein; Akron Bar 
Assn. v. Barnett (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 269, 685 N.E.2d 1230; Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Boykin (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 100, 694 N.E.2d 899.  In this case, 
mindful of the fact that respondent’s clients suffered little, if any, damage, we 
adopt the recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law for one year. 
 
Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  I would impose the sanction of indefinite suspension 
based on the recommendation of the relator. 
 
As the board reported, “there is a pattern here of a total lapse of professional 
conduct.  In each instance, there is an abdication of responsibility, and in each 
instance according to the Respondent, the fault always lay with someone or 
something else.  The Panel, after a thorough review  * * *, found reference after 
reference of carefully worded statements made by the Respondent confessing 
and/or avoiding his responsibility.  The Panel was impressed with the elocution, 
but not impressed with the substance.  * * * The Respondent’s statements in 
mitigation are at best lame excuses rather than valid reasons.” 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.