Case Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Griffin

Citation: 2000-Ohio-79

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-11-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Griffin, 90 Ohio St.3d 307, 2000-Ohio-79.] 
 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. GRIFFIN. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Griffin (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 307.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Eighteen-month suspension with entire 
suspension stayed and attorney placed on probation — Engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Neglecting an 
entrusted legal matter — Failing to carry out contract for professional 
services – Failing to deposit client funds in a separate bank account — 
Failing to promptly pay client on request funds client is entitled to 
receive — Failing to maintain complete records of all client funds 
coming into attorney’s possession — Neglecting or refusing to assist or 
testify in disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 00-835 — Submitted July 6, 2000 — Decided November 15, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-75. 
 
On October 7, 1999, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a 
third amended complaint charging respondent, Willie L. Griffin of Cleveland, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0038051, with several violations of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility and the Rules for the Government of the Bar.  
Respondent filed an answer, and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
The panel found that in November 1997, Ulysee Beltcher retained 
respondent and paid him a retainer of $1,500 to pursue a claim against Agency 
Homes for failing to make agreed repairs to his  house.  After respondent sent a 
letter to Agency Homes setting out Beltcher’s claim, Beltcher was unable to 
contact respondent for about six weeks.  When Beltcher finally reached 
respondent, respondent said that he would file suit against Agency Homes as soon 
 
 
2 
as Beltcher paid him $100 for the filing fee.  Although Beltcher paid the $100 in 
February 1998, he heard no more from respondent until April or May 1998, when 
Beltcher went to respondent’s home and asked why the suit had not been filed.  
Respondent agreed to file it right away.  It was two months more before Beltcher 
was able again to contact respondent, who told him that Agency Homes did not 
respond to his certified letter and may have moved.  Finally, on October 9, 1998, 
Beltcher filed a grievance with relator against respondent, unaware that 
respondent had filed the suit on Beltcher’s behalf on October 5, 1998. 
 
In December 1998, relator requested that respondent respond to Beltcher’s 
grievance.  After relator made several attempts to contact him, respondent finally 
spoke with relator on January 14, 1999.  At a subsequent meeting, respondent 
agreed to respond to the grievance and produce his entire file by February 5, 
1999.  Respondent failed to produce either a response or the file on that date.  
Respondent finally supplied relator with a portion of his file on September 14, 
1999. 
 
The panel further found that in May 1996, Deborah Smith-Williams 
retained respondent and paid him $2,200 of an agreed $3,500 fee to represent her 
son, who had been charged with attempted murder.  Without the consent of his 
client, respondent obtained a continuance of the trial set in December 1996, 
although there is evidence indicating that the court may have contacted 
respondent about a possible continuance.  Respondent did not respond to Smith-
Williams’s request that he account for the work he had done for her son; instead, 
he withdrew as counsel and failed to return any of the retainer.  After Smith-
Williams contacted relator, respondent failed to respond to her contentions and 
failed to produce his file as requested by relator. 
 
The panel finally found that respondent did not deposit the funds he 
received from Beltcher and Smith-Williams in a separate bank account and failed 
to keep records regarding those funds. 
 
 
3 
 
The panel concluded that during his representation of Beltcher, respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 2-106(A) (charging and collecting a clearly 
excessive fee for services rendered), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal 
matter), and 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract for professional services).  
With respect to the money paid by Beltcher, the panel concluded that respondent 
violated DR 9-102(A)(2) (failing to deposit client funds in a separate bank 
account), 9-102(B)(3) (failing to maintain complete records of all client funds 
coming into his possession), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay to a client 
on request the funds which the client is entitled to receive).  The panel further 
concluded that respondent’s failure to cooperate with relator’s investigations in 
both cases violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (neglecting or refusing to assist or testify 
in a disciplinary investigation). 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice 
of law for six months, with all six months stayed in favor of probation.  During 
probation, relator would appoint a monitor to assist respondent in the management 
of his law practice, and respondent would establish and maintain an IOLTA. 
 
The board adopted the findings of the panel and concluded that in the 
Beltcher matter respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-
101(A)(2); however, the board found insufficient evidence to support a violation 
of DR 2-106(A).  It concluded that respondent’s handling of funds in the Beltcher 
matter violated DR 9-102(A)(2), 9-102(B)(3), and 9-102(B)(4), and that his 
handling of funds in the Smith-Williams matter violated DR 9-102(B)(3) and 9-
102(B)(4).  The board further concluded that respondent’s failure to cooperate 
with relator’s investigations in both cases violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  The 
board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 
eighteen months, with all eighteen months of the suspension stayed in favor of 
probation on the conditions recommended by the panel. 
 
 
4 
__________________ 
 
Robert J. Vecchio, Mary Ann O. Rini and Ellen S. Mandell, for relator. 
 
Bernard Redfield, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations 
of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for 
eighteen months, with all eighteen months of the suspension stayed, and 
respondent is placed on probation.  During the eighteen months of probation, 
relator shall monitor respondent’s law practice, and respondent shall establish and 
maintain a trust account for client funds.  A violation of the conditions of 
probation may result in the revocation of probation and reinstatement of any 
stayed suspension.  Gov.Bar R. V(9)(E).  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissent. 
 
COOK, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent.  I agree with 
the recommendation to suspend respondent from the practice of law for eighteen 
months.  However, I would stay only twelve months of the suspension.  I believe 
that respondent’s egregious behavior and multiple violations of Disciplinary 
Rules warrant, at a minimum, an actual suspension of six months. 
 
MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.