Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moesle

Citation: 2005-Ohio-5517

Docket Number: 20050798

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-11-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moesle, 106 Ohio St.3d 475, 2005-Ohio-5517.] 
 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. MOESLE. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moesle, 106 Ohio St.3d 475, 2005-Ohio-5517.] 
Attorneys – Misconduct – Engaging in conduct prejudicial to administration of 
justice — Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice 
law – Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud or 
misrepresentation – Neglecting a legal matter – Intentionally failing to 
seek client’s lawful objectives – Intentionally failing to carry out contract 
of employment – Causing damage to a client – Failing to return client’s 
funds promptly – Failing to cooperate in disciplinary proceeding – 
Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2005-0798 — Submitted June 15, 2005 — Decided November 2, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-048. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Eric J. Moesle, of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0063653, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1994. 
{¶ 2} On August 9, 2004, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged 
respondent with two counts of professional misconduct.  Respondent was served 
with the complaint but did not answer, and relator moved for default pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). 
{¶ 3} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline granted the motion as to the first count; however, he 
found that relator had not sufficiently authenticated the evidence in support of the 
second count as required by Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 104 Ohio St.3d 448, 
2004-Ohio-6560, 820 N.E.2d 318.  Accordingly, the master commissioner made 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
findings of misconduct and a recommendation as to Count One, which the board 
adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} In April 2002, respondent accepted a $935 retainer, including 
filing fees, to assist a client in terminating her marriage.  Respondent filed a 
divorce complaint in June 2002 on his client’s behalf.  He later apparently 
represented to his client that, due to her pregnancy, he had continued a hearing on 
various temporary orders.  The court docket in the case, however, does not reflect 
any continuance.  Moreover, in December 2002, respondent told his client that her 
husband had failed to comply with an ordered paternity test and that a warrant had 
been issued for the husband’s arrest.  The client later learned that respondent had 
lied about the order and the arrest warrant. 
{¶ 5} Early in 2003, respondent failed to return his client’s many 
telephone calls regarding the status of her case.  Although the client did not know 
it, respondent had actually voluntarily dismissed her case.  Respondent also did 
not return his client’s retainer as requested. 
{¶ 6} From this evidence, the board found respondent in violation of DR 
1-102(A)(4) 
(barring 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (barring conduct prejudicial to the administration 
of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct adversely reflecting on a lawyer’s fitness 
to practice law), 2-106(A) (barring a lawyer from seeking or collecting an illegal 
or clearly excessive fee), 6-101(A)(3) (barring the neglect of an entrusted legal 
matter), 7-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to seek a 
client’s lawful objectives), 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally 
failing to carry out a contract of employment), 7-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from causing a client damage or prejudice during representation), and 9-102(B)(4) 
(requiring a lawyer to promptly return funds or property to which the client is 
entitled).  Moreover, because respondent failed to respond to four letters of 
January Term, 2005 
3 
inquiry sent by certified or regular mail, the board found respondent in violation 
of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring lawyers to cooperate in disciplinary 
proceedings). 
{¶ 7} We adopt these findings of misconduct.  We also adopt the finding 
that Count Two was not proved to the extent required by Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F) and 
Sebree, supra.  Count Two of the complaint is therefore dismissed without 
prejudice. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
reviewed the aggravating and mitigating factors in respondent’s case.  See Section 
10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The board found nothing mitigating in the evidence.  The 
board found respondent’s failure to cooperate, his refusal to acknowledge 
wrongdoing, and the harm he had caused to a vulnerable client to be aggravating 
factors.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(e), (g), and (h).  The board recommended, 
consistent with the master commissioner’s report, that respondent be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law. 
{¶ 9} Having found that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-
102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 2-106(A), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), 7-
101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4), we also accept the sanction recommended by the 
board.  See Columbus Bar Assn. v. Torian, 106 Ohio St.3d 14, 2005-Ohio-3216, 
829 N.E.2d 1210 (neglect of legal matters combined with other misconduct and 
the failure to cooperate in an ensuing disciplinary investigation warrants an 
indefinite suspension). 
{¶ 10} Respondent is therefore hereby indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, 
JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs separately. 
_________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring. 
{¶ 11} I write separately to explain my concurrence in the majority’s 
opinion.  Normally, one incident giving rise to the charges in this complaint 
would not have warranted an indefinite suspension.  But when a respondent fails 
to respond to the complaint, he leaves us little choice, as his conduct demonstrates 
a flagrant disregard for the disciplinary process.  Therefore, I concur in the 
indefinite suspension. 
__________________ 
 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and Jill M. Snitcher McQuain, Assistant 
Bar Counsel; Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn and Bridgette C. Roman, for relator. 
______________________