Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Perry

Citation: 1999-Ohio-32

Docket Number: 19991163

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-11-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Perry, 87 Ohio St.3d 217, 1999-Ohio-32.] 
 
 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. PERRY. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Perry (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 217.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Eighteen-month suspension with one year 
stayed with probation — Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on 
fitness to practice law — Failing to cooperate in a disciplinary 
investigation. 
(No. 99-1163 — Submitted August 25, 1999 — Decided November 10, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-37. 
 
In August 1995, Doris Jones retained respondent, Kirk L. Perry of 
Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0059854, to represent her as a 
successor attorney in a medical malpractice case her previous attorney had filed in 
the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.  On behalf of Jones, respondent 
voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice but did not refile it before the 
statute of limitations expired.  Respondent believed that because Jones had failed 
to advance certain costs, he was not obligated to refile the medical malpractice 
case.  But he did not advise Jones that he would not refile her case. 
 
Jones subsequently discharged respondent and requested that he return her 
file, but respondent was unable to return Jones’s file because the file had been 
inadvertently thrown out.  During the period of respondent’s representation of 
Jones, he did not have legal malpractice insurance, and he also did not have a trust 
account for client funds. 
 
Jones filed a grievance with relator, Cleveland Bar Association, and 
respondent failed to respond to relator’s investigative inquiries. 
 
On June 8, 1998, relator filed a complaint charging respondent with 
violating several Disciplinary Rules and a Rule for the Government of the Bar.  
 
 
2
The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
The panel found the facts as previously set forth and concluded that 
respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely 
reflecting upon a lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing 
to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). 
 
In mitigation, the panel found that at the time of the charged violations in 
this case, respondent’s mother died, which forced him to become the guardian of 
three young children and consumed much of his time. 
 
The panel also noted that respondent “seemed contrite; appeared to 
recognize the implications of his conduct; and acknowledged that this conduct was 
detrimental to the profession.”  In addition, respondent testified that he is now in 
semi-retirement from the practice of law and is in the process of concluding his 
representation of his few remaining long-term clients. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for eighteen months, with one year stayed, and that respondent be 
placed on probation, provided that during the probation, respondent be monitored 
by an attorney appointed by relator pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9), establish an 
appropriate IOLTA, and maintain professional liability insurance in such 
reasonable amounts as may be determined to be appropriate under the 
circumstances.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation, 
additionally specifying that the professional liability insurance that respondent be 
required to maintain be in the minimum amount of $100,000 per occurrence and 
$300,000 in the aggregate. 
__________________ 
 
Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., David Ross and John P. O’Neil, for 
relator. 
 
 
3
 
Kirk L. Perry, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  A suspension from the practice of law with a portion of the suspension 
stayed is an appropriate sanction for respondent’s violations of DR 1-102(A)(6) 
and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Fortado (1996), 74 
Ohio St.3d 604, 660 N.E.2d 1154; see, also, Disciplinary Counsel v. Gosling 
(1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 113, 679 N.E.2d 1096; Disciplinary Counsel v. Vazquez 
(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 295, 677 N.E.2d 804.  Respondent is hereby suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio for eighteen months, with one year stayed and 
respondent placed on probation.  During the one-year probationary period, relator 
shall appoint a monitoring attorney pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9), and respondent 
shall establish a trust account for client funds and maintain professional liability 
insurance in the minimum amount of $100,000 per occurrence and $300,000 in the 
aggregate.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.