Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood

Citation: 1996-Ohio-294

Docket Number: 19952556

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood. 
1 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d ____.] 
2 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- 
3 
Repeated violations of Disciplinary Rules over a relatively short 
4 
period of time -- Continuing to practice law after suspension -- 
5 
Engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice 
6 
law. 
7 
 
(No. 95-2556--Submitted January 24, 1996--Decided February 28, 
8 
1996.) 
9 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
10 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-55. 
11 
 
In a complaint filed June 5, 1995, relator, Office of Disciplinary 
12 
Counsel, charged respondent, James Edward Caywood of Willoughby, 
13 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0020157, with having violated DR 1-
14 
102(A)(6) (misconduct by engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on 
15 
fitness to practice law) and 3-101(B) (practicing law in a jurisdiction where 
16 
to do so would be in violation of regulations of the profession in that 
17 
jurisdiction).  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
18 
 
2
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) heard the matter on October 27, 
1 
1995. 
2 
 
The parties stipulated to the facts and misconduct charged in the 
3 
complaint as follows: 
4 
 
“1.  Respondent, James Edward Caywood, an attorney at law, was 
5 
admitted to the practice of law in the State of Ohio on May 7, 1979.  
6 
Respondent has been the subject of three (3) prior disciplinary proceedings.  
7 
On November 15, 1989, the Supreme Court of Ohio, after finding that 
8 
[r]espondent had violated DR 6-101(3) (neglect of a legal matter), DR 7-
9 
101(A)(2) (failure to carry out a contract of employment), and Gov. Bar 
10 
Rule V, §4(G) (assist in disciplinary investigations), suspended [r]espondent 
11 
from the practice of law for two (2) years, staying said suspension pending 
12 
[r]espondent’s successful completion of two (2) years of monitored 
13 
probation.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Caywood (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 186 
14 
[546 N.E.2d 411]. 
15 
 
“2.  On December 11, 1991, the Supreme Court of Ohio suspended 
16 
[r]espondent from the practice of law for one (1) year, with additional 
17 
conditions to be met before his reinstatement.  Cuyahoga [Cty.] Bar Assn. v. 
18 
 
3
Caywood (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 185 [588 N.E.2d 1076].  Respondent had 
1 
failed to file suit in a personal injury action until after the statute of 
2 
limitations had expired and then knowingly misrepresented the date of 
3 
injury in an effort to render the action timely. 
4 
 
“3.  On December 14, 1994, the Supreme Court of Ohio ordered that 
5 
[r]espondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law for violating 
6 
DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him), DR 1-
7 
101(A)(4) (misconduct involving deceit and misrepresentation), and DR 7-
8 
102(A)(5) (knowingly make a false statement of fact).  Cuyahoga [Cty.] 
9 
Bar Assn. v. Caywood (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 164 [642 N.E.2d 625]. 
10 
 
“4.  Pursuant to his suspension, [r]espondent was ordered to notify his 
11 
clients of the suspension, and to immediately cease and desist from the 
12 
practice of law in any form.  On January 13, 1995, while indefinitely 
13 
suspended from the practice of law, [r]espondent made a pretrial appearance 
14 
as an attorney before Referee David E. Koerner in the Willoughby 
15 
Municipal Court.  Shree Rajendra Corp. v. Tipton, Case No. 94-CVF-
16 
01789.  Respondent admits his appearance at the pretrial hearing:  ‘this was 
17 
 
4
the only instance since my suspension was announced that something such 
1 
as this occurred. ***’ 
2 
 
“5.  In its Order of December 14, 1994, the Supreme Court of Ohio 
3 
decreed that, as a result of his suspension, [r]espondent ‘is hereby forbidden 
4 
to counsel or advise or prepare legal instruments for others or in any manner 
5 
perform such services.’” 
6 
 
The respondent stated before the panel that at the time of his 
7 
attendance at the pretrial hearing in the Willoughby Municipal Court, he 
8 
was an employee of Shree Rajendra Corporation.  At that time, his 
9 
employer, Mohan Jain, had undergone surgery and was unable to attend the 
10 
pretrial hearing.  Respondent allegedly acceded to pressure from his 
11 
employer to attend the pretrial hearing, even though respondent was aware 
12 
that it was improper for him to do so. 
13 
 
The parties also stipulated to two mitigating factors: 
14 
 
“1.  Respondent has cooperated with disciplinary authorities 
15 
throughout these proceedings. 
16 
 
“2.  This is the only occasion during his suspension that Respondent 
17 
has appeared in court in the capacity of an attorney.” 
18 
 
5
 
The panel found that respondent had engaged in misconduct as 
1 
charged in the complaint.  The panel recommended that, given respondent’s 
2 
current indefinite suspension in Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Caywood 
3 
(1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 164, 642 N.E. 2d 625, his eligibility for reinstatement 
4 
should be extended eighteen months to June 14, 1998.  The board adopted 
5 
the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the panel and, further, that the 
6 
costs of the proceedings be taxed to respondent. 
7 
 
8 
 
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant 
9 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
10 
 
James Edward Caywood, pro se. 
11 
 
12 
 
Per Curiam.  We concur in the board’s findings of fact and 
13 
conclusions of law.  However, respondent’s repeated violations of the 
14 
Disciplinary Rules over a relatively short period of time merit a more severe 
15 
penalty than that recommended by the board.  Respondent’s most recent 
16 
violations took place approximately one month after his suspension was 
17 
announced by this court in Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Caywood, (71 Ohio 
18 
 
6
St.3d 164, 642 N.E.2d 625).  In defiance of our ordered suspension, 
1 
respondent continued to practice law by appearing in court as an attorney, 
2 
even though he knew that it was clearly improper for him to do so.  In light 
3 
of respondent’s current violations and history of professional misconduct, 
4 
respondent is hereby ordered permanently disbarred from the practice of law 
5 
in Ohio.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
6 
Judgment accordingly. 
7 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
8 
and COOK, JJ., concur. 
9 
 
10