Case Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Slack

Citation: 2000-Ohio-337

Docket Number: 19991895

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-03-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Slack, 88 Ohio St.3d 274, 2000-Ohio-337.] 
 
 
 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. SLACK. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Slack (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 274.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Continuing course of 
misconduct and multiple felony convictions. 
(No. 99-1895 — Submitted December 15, 1999 — Decided March 22, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-51. 
 
On March 9, 1998, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed an amended 
complaint charging respondent, Eric W. Slack of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0030829, with the violation of several Disciplinary Rules.  
Respondent answered, 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 Morris Stanley retained respondent to represent him in 
a personal injury claim resulting from an automobile accident on “May 19, 1998 
[sic].”  Respondent filed a complaint on behalf of Stanley in May 1991, but 
thereafter he settled the matter in March 1992 for $1,000 without Stanley’s 
knowledge.  Respondent did not forward the check and concealed the settlement 
from Stanley until 1996. 
 
 
2
 
The panel further found that while employed as a Lucas County Assistant 
Prosecuting Attorney, respondent filed with the court a false affidavit regarding the 
value of a vehicle.  As a result, respondent pled guilty to falsification, a 
misdemeanor of the first degree. 
 
The panel also found that in March 1994, Linda Fink hired respondent to file 
a bankruptcy for her and paid him $700.  Although he did not commence a 
bankruptcy case for Fink, respondent repeatedly told her that her case had been 
filed and her debts discharged.  He even provided Fink with a false case number.  
When the bankruptcy trustee moved to dismiss the case that respondent eventually 
filed for Fink in 1997, respondent filed a motion for reinstatement supported by an 
affidavit that purportedly contained Fink’s signature.  He later admitted that he had 
signed and notarized the affidavit, which Fink never saw. 
 
The panel concluded that with respect to the Stanley matter, respondent 
violated DR 7-101(A)(3) (prejudicing or damaging a client during the course of a 
professional relationship), 9-102(B)(1) (failing to promptly notify the client of the 
receipt of the client’s funds), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly deliver to the 
client property which the client is entitled to receive).  With respect to the first 
false affidavit, the panel concluded that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(1) 
(violating a Disciplinary Rule), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct 
 
 
3
prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct 
that adversely reflects upon the attorney’s fitness to practice law).  In relation to 
the Fink matter, the panel concluded that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(1), (4), 
(5), and (6), as well as 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter) and 7-
102(A)(8) (engaging in illegal conduct contrary to a Disciplinary Rule). 
 
In mitigation, respondent presented testimony of counsel for the insurance 
company with whom he had settled the Stanley case to the effect that the case was 
not worth more than $1,000. 
 
The panel initially recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended, 
but changed its recommendation to permanent disbarment upon learning of 
respondent’s conviction of multiple felony counts in an unrelated matter.  The 
board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel, but not its 
recommendation.  The board recommended that respondent be indefinitely 
suspended.  Upon notice of respondent’s felony conviction, this court ordered 
respondent suspended from the practice of law for an interim period, effective 
October 20, 1999.  In re Slack (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 1425, 718 N.E.2d 442. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan B. Cherry and Matthew J. Rohrbacher, for relator. 
 
James D. Caruso, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
 
4
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  
However, we do not accept the board’s recommendation of indefinite suspension.  
Based on the continuing course of misconduct and respondent’s multiple felony 
convictions, we believe that a harsher sanction is warranted.  Therefore, respondent 
is permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.