Case Title: Clermont Cty. Bar Assn. v. Compton

Citation: 1999-Ohio-193

Docket Number: 19990809

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-09-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Clermont Cty. Bar Assn. v. Compton, 86 Ohio St.3d 542, 1999-Ohio-193.] 
 
 
 
 
 
CLERMONT COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. COMPTON. 
[Cite as Clermont Cty. Bar Assn. v. Compton (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 542.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglect of an entrusted 
legal matter — Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation — Failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 99-809 — Submitted June 9, 1999 — Decided September 8, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-42. 
 
In August 1996, Donna M. Pruchnowski retained respondent, Ross H. 
Compton, Jr. of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0051214, to increase 
the child support for her two children.  Despite repeated representations to the 
contrary, respondent did not file anything until nearly a year later.  Pruchnowski 
filed grievances with relator, Clermont County Bar Association, and respondent 
did not cooperate with relator’s investigation of the grievances. 
 
On June 8, 1998, relator filed a complaint charging respondent with 
violating several Disciplinary Rules and a Rule for the Government for the Bar.  
After respondent failed to answer, relator moved for a default judgment pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  The hearing panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) then sent respondent 
notice of its intent to grant the motion if no answer was filed within ten days, but 
respondent again failed to file an answer.  The matter was then submitted for 
determination by the panel. 
 
The panel found the facts as alleged and concluded that respondent’s 
conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 1-
102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary 
 
2 
investigation).  The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law, with his readmission conditioned upon his making full 
and complete restitution to Pruchnowski.  The board adopted the findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Paul R. Yelton, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  “ ‘[W]hen an attorney engages in a course of conduct resulting in a 
finding that the attorney has violated DR 1-102(A)(4), the attorney will be actually 
suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of time.’ ”  Cleveland 
Bar Assn. v. Knowlton (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 76, 78, 689 N.E.2d 538, 539, quoting 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 
237, 240.  An indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction here given 
respondent’s repeated misrepresentations, neglect of a legal matter, and failure to 
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.  See Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Lieser (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 488, 490, 683 N.E.2d 1148, 1149.  Respondent is 
hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio, and any 
readmission is conditioned upon his making complete restitution to Pruchnowski.  
Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.