Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Emerson

Citation: 1999-Ohio-482

Docket Number: 19981744

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-01-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. EMERSON. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Emerson (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Violating a 
Disciplinary Rule — Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 
practice law — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Failing to carry out 
employment contract — Prejudicing client during course of professional 
relationship — Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice — Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation — Neglecting or refusing to assist or testify in a 
disciplinary investigation or hearing. 
(No. 98-1744 — Submitted September 29, 1998 — Decided January 13, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-13. 
 
On February 18, 1997, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a four-
count complaint charging respondent, Wesley C. Emerson of Columbus, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0059853, with several violations of the Disciplinary 
Rules and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  When respondent failed to file an answer, relator 
filed a motion for default judgment.  Respondent then filed a memorandum in 
opposition as well as a motion for leave to file an answer.  The Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) 
granted respondent leave to file an answer.  In his answer, respondent denied that 
his conduct violated any Disciplinary Rule or Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
 
On November 12, 1997, relator filed an amended, five-count complaint 
charging respondent with violations of the Disciplinary Rules and Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G).  On January 8, 1998, relator filed a second amended, six-count complaint 
against respondent.  In April 1998, the board scheduled a hearing on the second 
 
2
amended complaint for June 18, 1998 before a panel of the board.  After failing to 
file an answer to the first amended complaint, respondent filed a motion three days 
before the scheduled hearing date to continue the hearing based on a trial conflict.  
When the board denied his motion, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration 
and an untimely answer in which he generally denied the allegations of relator’s 
first amended complaint.  Respondent filed no response to relator’s second 
amended complaint or to relator’s request for the production of documents.  The 
panel proceeded with the scheduled hearing, and respondent did not appear or 
submit evidence. 
 
The panel made the following findings.  Respondent represented the 
plaintiff in a federal district court case.  He did not appear for a final pretrial 
conference in the case, and court representatives were unable to reach him by 
telephone or through an employee sent to respondent’s law office.  At a December 
1995 hearing to determine whether respondent should receive a sanction, the 
federal district court judge noted that the defendant’s counsel had advised him that 
respondent had failed to respond to repeated telephone messages concerning the 
case and that defendant’s counsel’s most recent telephone calls had been 
intercepted by an answering device reporting that respondent’s voice mail was 
full.  In January 1996, the judge fined respondent $100 and ordered him to contact 
relator, report to relator the circumstances leading to the sanctions, and cooperate 
with relator on plans or programs to help him avoid these problems in the future.  
Respondent, however, never contacted relator. 
 
In July 1995, Ralph K. Farrell paid respondent a $1,500 retainer to represent 
him in a postdecree custody matter and gave respondent all of the documents 
relating to his divorce.  Respondent advised Farrell that the court would begin 
hearings in the case in September 1995.  After attempting unsuccessfully about 
 
3
twelve times to reach respondent, Farrell discharged him in the fall of 1995 and 
requested that the documents be returned and the retainer be refunded.  
Respondent did not return the fees or the documents to Farrell.  Respondent also 
never filed anything on behalf of Farrell. 
 
In 1994, Ronald Goldstein obtained an $11,126 judgment against Mark 
Tracton.  When Tracton filed for bankruptcy, Goldstein’s attorney referred him to 
respondent.  Respondent agreed to file an adversary complaint on behalf of 
Goldstein in order to prevent his monetary judgment from being discharged in 
bankruptcy.  Respondent failed to timely file the complaint, and when he filed it, 
he failed to serve a copy on Tracton’s counsel.  When respondent ultimately 
obtained proper service, the bankruptcy court dismissed the adversary complaint 
because of respondent’s failure to timely seek relief on behalf of Goldstein. 
 
In August 1995, Kermit Day retained respondent to represent him for claims 
arising from an automobile accident.  Despite respondent’s assurances that he was 
handling the case and had contacted an insurance company on Day’s behalf, he 
actually did nothing for Day.  Day discharged respondent in March 1997. 
 
In May 1997, Joseph Poliziani paid respondent an initial retainer of $750 to 
represent him in modifying a postdecree shared-parenting plan, and later paid him 
an additional $350.  Respondent misrepresented the status of the case by reporting 
that he had taken actions that he had not performed.  Respondent also failed to 
respond to letters and telephone calls from Poliziani concerning his case.  After 
Poliziani terminated respondent’s representation in September 1997, respondent 
failed to comply with his demands to turn over the case file and return a portion of 
the retainer.  Respondent further failed to cooperate with the disciplinary 
investigation concerning the counts set forth in the second amended complaint. 
 
4
 
The panel concluded that respondent had committed six violations of DR 1-
102(A)(1) (violating a Disciplinary Rule), six violations of DR 1-102(A)(6) 
(engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law), five 
violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter), five violations of DR 7-
101(A)(1) (failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client), five violations of DR 
7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out an employment contract), five violations of DR 7-
101(A)(3) (prejudicing a client during the course of the professional relationship), 
four violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), and two violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  The panel also 
found that respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (neglecting or refusing to 
assist or testify in a disciplinary investigation or hearing).  The panel accepted 
relator’s recommendation that respondent be suspended indefinitely from the 
practice of law in Ohio. 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel. 
__________________ 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease and Julie A. Davis; Schottenstein, Zox & 
Dunn and James E. Davidson; and Bruce A. Campbell, for relator. 
 
Wesley C. Emerson, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent’s pattern of neglect and misrepresentation coupled with his 
cavalier attitude towards the disciplinary proceedings establishes his present 
unfitness to practice law in Ohio. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio. 
 
5
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I dissent from the majority’s 
decision to indefinitely suspend the respondent and would disbar the respondent.  
His problem, time after time, of obtaining retainers and utterly failing to do 
anything about the matter, or to return files and retainer upon discharge, is akin to 
theft.  Respondent’s failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process or to present 
any mitigation evidence to explain his abusive course of conduct further supports 
that he is totally unfit to continue the practice of law in this state.  Therefore, I 
would disbar the respondent. 
 
COOK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.