Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Barnett

Citation: 1997-Ohio-142

Docket Number: 19971317

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-11-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION V. BARNETT. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Barnett (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglect of an 
entrusted legal matter — Failure to carry out contract of employment — 
Unwillingness to cooperate in disciplinary process. 
 
(No. 97-1317 — Submitted August 26, 1997 — Decided November 19, 
1997.) 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-28. 
 
On September 6, 1996, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed an amended 
complaint charging respondent, Elaine A. Barnett of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0041098, with misconduct both in her handling of two client 
matters and in her failure to cooperate with relator’s attempts to investigate the 
clients’ grievances.  Relator also alleged that respondent violated Rules for the 
Government of the Bar by continuing to practice law after September 1993 
without maintaining registration with the Supreme Court and by failing to 
complete the necessary continuing legal education requirements. 
 
Respondent failed to answer the complaint.  Based on relator’s motion for a 
default judgment, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“board”) found the following facts.  In November, 1994 Betty Weddles 
paid respondent a retainer of $100 to commence divorce proceedings.  Thereafter, 
respondent took no action on behalf of Weddles, failed to respond to any inquiries 
by Weddles, and failed to return the $100 to her.  In March 1995, Jeffrey A. 
LaRose retained respondent to represent him in divorce proceedings.  After a 
November 1995 hearing in LaRose’s case, the trial court instructed respondent to 
prepare an agreed entry and necessary documents to carry out the decree.  Only 
 
2
after being cited by the court did respondent file the agreed entry in February 
1996.  However, respondent has not yet filed the quitclaim deed required by the 
agreed entry.  Respondent also did not cooperate with relator’s attempts to 
investigate the grievances filed by Weddles and LaRose. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s actions constituted violations of DR 
6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal matter) and 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry 
out a contract of employment).  It also concluded that respondent’s 
noncooperation in relator’s investigation violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), that her 
continuing to practice while not in good standing because she was not registered 
violated Gov.Bar R. VI, and that her failure to complete the necessary continuing 
legal education requirements violated Gov.Bar R. X.  The panel recommended that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years with one year 
stayed, subject to probation and conditions. 
 
The board adopted the findings of the panel and concluded that respondent 
had violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged, but declined to rule on the 
violations of the Rules for the Government of the Bar.  It recommended that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years, with one year 
stayed and that respondent be placed on probation under relator’s monitoring.  The 
board also directed that respondent return to Weddles and LaRose any retainers 
received from them. 
__________________ 
 
George W. Rooney, Jr., Peter T. Cahoon and Tony Paxton, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the panel.  
However, we find that a more severe sanction is warranted.  We are not only 
concerned about respondent’s neglect of client matters, but we are also troubled by 
 
3
her clear unwillingness to cooperate in the disciplinary process.  The record 
indicates that respondent ignored relator’s numerous attempts to discuss the 
grievances filed against her and actively attempted to evade the service of  the 
complaint.  Respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  
Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, COOK and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J., dissenting.  I would follow the board’s 
recommendation and suspend the respondent for two years with one year stayed, 
requiring that the respondent be placed on probation during this period. 
 
DOUGLAS and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting 
opinion.