Case Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Jaffe

Citation: 2009-Ohio-763

Docket Number: 20081682

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-02-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Jaffe, 121 Ohio St.3d 260, 2009-Ohio-763.] 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION, F.K.A. CUYAHOGA COUNTY 
BAR ASSOCIATION, v. JAFFE. 
[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Jaffe, 
 121 Ohio St.3d 260, 2009-Ohio-763.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) — Failure to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigation — Six-month suspension. 
(No. 2008-1682 ─ Submitted October 14, 2008 ─ Decided February 26, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-011. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David I. Jaffe of Solon, Ohio, Attorney Registration 
No. 0005153, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1981.  The Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we suspend 
respondent’s license to practice for six months, based on findings that he failed to 
cooperate in a grievance investigation in violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  We 
agree that respondent committed professional misconduct as found by the board 
and accept the recommendation of a six-month suspension. 
{¶ 2} Michael Garland filed a grievance against respondent with relator, 
Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association (f.k.a. Cuyahoga County Bar 
Association).  On February 16, 2007, relator notified respondent of the grievance 
and of his duty to cooperate with the investigation and directed him to respond 
within 14 days.  In an e-mail dated March 29, 2007, respondent acknowledged 
receipt of relator’s letter and indicated that he hoped to respond within three 
weeks.  Approximately two weeks later, respondent e-mailed the investigator, 
falsely indicating that he had prepared a response and had placed it in the mail.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
The following month, the investigator sent respondent a letter by e-mail and by 
certified mail stating that no response had been received and demanding a 
response within ten days.  The certified mail was returned marked “refused,” and 
subsequent attempts to reach respondent by telephone and e-mail were 
unsuccessful. 
{¶ 3} On February 26, 2008, relator filed a complaint charging 
respondent with failure to cooperate in the investigation arising from the 
grievance filed by Michael Garland.  Respondent filed an answer to the complaint 
denying the allegations that he had failed to cooperate in the investigation.  A 
notice of deposition was served upon respondent, but on the morning of the 
deposition, respondent left a voicemail advising relator’s counsel that he did not 
believe that his attendance was required because he had delivered the Garland file 
to relator’s counsel.  Respondent did attend a subsequently scheduled deposition 
and admitted the allegations in the complaint. 
{¶ 4} On June 11, 2008, the parties filed an application for discipline by 
consent.  See Rule 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The application was 
untimely under BCGD Proc.Reg.  11(B) and hence was not accepted.  Instead, the 
matter was submitted to a panel of the board upon the parties’ stipulations of 
facts, exhibits, aggravating and mitigating factors, and an agreed-upon sanction.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11(F). 
{¶ 5} The panel, having accepted the stipulated facts and exhibits, found 
by clear and convincing evidence that respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G).  The panel also accepted the stipulated aggravating and mitigating 
factors.  In aggravation, respondent had a prior disciplinary violation resulting in a 
two-year suspension with the second year stayed on conditions in 2004. 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Jaffe, 102 Ohio St.3d 273, 2004-Ohio-2685, 809 N.E.2d 
January Term, 2009 
3 
1122.  Mitigating factors include the lack of a dishonest or selfish motive, the 
absence of harm to a client, the absence of a pattern of misconduct, respondent’s 
eventual cooperation in the disciplinary process, and his admission of the 
wrongful nature of his conduct.  Respondent’s closing of his law office and plans 
to cease practicing law were also noted. 
{¶ 6} In light of the circumstances, the panel recommended, as the 
parties had agreed, that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for six 
months.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel and further recommended that the costs of the proceedings be taxed to 
respondent. 
{¶ 7} Based on the violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) as admitted in the 
stipulations and the stipulated mitigating and aggravating factors, we accept the 
board’s recommendation of a six-month suspension. 
{¶ 8} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for six months.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Ellen S. Mandell, Bar Counsel, and Thomas E. Kocovsky, for relator. 
 
David I. Jaffe, pro se. 
______________________