Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Tolliver

Citation: 1996-Ohio-83

Docket Number: 19952174

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-03-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
Cleveland Bar Association v. Tolliver. 
1 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Tolliver (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d ____.] 
2 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Neglecting an 
3 
entrusted legal matter -- Intentionally failing to carry out 
4 
contract entered into with a client for professional services. 
5 
 
(No. 95-2174 -- Submitted December 6, 1995 -- Decided March 5, 
6 
1996.) 
7 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
8 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 92-60.  
9 
 
In an amended complaint filed April 26, 1993, relator, Cleveland Bar 
10 
Association, charged respondent, Stanley E. Tolliver, Sr., of Cleveland, 
11 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0031969, with two counts of having 
12 
violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him); two 
13 
counts of having violated DR 7-101(A)(2) (intentionally failing to carry out 
14 
a contract entered into with a client for professional services); and one count 
15 
of having violated DR 2-110(A)(2) (improperly withdrawing from 
16 
employment).  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
17 
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) heard the matter on October 4, 
18 
1994 and November 2, 1994. 
19 
 
2
 
Count I of the complaint alleged that respondent was retained by 
1 
Homer Sherrell, Sr. and his wife, Ora Mae, to represent their son, Homer 
2 
Sherrell, Jr., in an appeal from a felony conviction before the Fifth District 
3 
Court of Appeals.  Respondent was paid $10,000 by Mr. and Mrs. Sherrell 
4 
to pursue this appeal.  On November 13, 1989, the court of appeals affirmed 
5 
the conviction, and Mrs. Sherrell paid respondent $2,500 to perfect an 
6 
appeal before the Supreme Court of Ohio, along with co-counsel, Jimmie 
7 
Mack, Jr.  Respondent gave Ora Mae Sherrell a receipt with the notation 
8 
“Appeal-Supreme Ct.”  Subsequently, respondent and Mack filed a notice of 
9 
appeal to this court on behalf of Homer Sherrell, Jr.  On January 16, 1990, 
10 
this court denied appellant, Homer Sherrell, Jr.’s request for an extension of 
11 
time to file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction.  See State v. Sherrell, 
12 
case No. 90-89.  On April 6, 1990, this court dismissed the appeal for failure 
13 
to prosecute with requisite diligence since respondent failed to file a 
14 
memorandum in support of jurisdiction as required by the Supreme Court 
15 
Rules of Practice.  50 Ohio St.3d 716, 553 N.E.2d 1370.  During the 
16 
pendency of the appeal, respondent had repeatedly assured Sherrell and his 
17 
parents that all documents had been filed and they were merely awaiting the 
18 
 
3
decision of the court.  Respondent failed to notify Sherrell or his parents of 
1 
the dismissal, or the reasons behind it. 
2 
 
Sherrell and his parents thereafter retained new counsel who filed a 
3 
motion before this court to reconsider the dismissal.  Said motion was 
4 
denied on July 25, 1990.  53 Ohio St.3d 706, 558 N.E.2d 62.  The Sherrells 
5 
requested that respondent refund the $2,500 he received to pursue the 
6 
appeal.  Upon respondent’s refusal to refund the money, Sherrell’s parents 
7 
filed an action against respondent and Mack in the Canton Municipal Court 
8 
to recover the $2,500 fee.  The Sherrells eventually obtained a consent 
9 
judgment against respondent in the amount of $2,500 plus interest and court 
10 
costs.  The action against Mack was dismissed with prejudice by agreement. 
11 
The judgment in installments was satisfied on August 3, 1992. 
12 
 
Count II alleged that respondent was retained by Lovell Richardson 
13 
in February 1991 to represent him in a criminal indictment for dealing in 
14 
drugs pending in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, case No. 
15 
260551.  Richardson paid respondent $5,000 to represent him. 
16 
 
Richardson was later convicted, and respondent agreed to handle the 
17 
appeal.  Respondent filed a notice of appeal in the court of appeals, case No. 
18 
 
4
62132.  On August 26, 1991, the appellate court dismissed the appeal sua 
1 
sponte, for failure to file a precipe.  A second notice of appeal was filed 
2 
November 1, 1991 with a precipe and other documents attached.  However, 
3 
this appeal was dismissed on November 29, 1991 for not being timely filed. 
4 
 
The complaint further alleged that respondent failed to notify 
5 
Richardson that the second appeal had been dismissed, despite inquiries by 
6 
Richardson to respondent.  In addition, the complaint alleged that 
7 
respondent withdrew from his employment without notifying Richardson or 
8 
obtaining permission from the court to withdraw as counsel.  Acting pro se, 
9 
Richardson sought and was granted the right to file a delayed appeal on 
10 
February 24, 1992. 
11 
 
At the hearing before the board, both respondent and Mack testified 
12 
that they determined that a more effective way to handle Sherrell’s case 
13 
would be to file a petition for postconviction relief in the court of common 
14 
pleas pursuant to R.C. 2953.21.  They claimed that this strategy would allow 
15 
them to build a better record for appeal than a direct appeal to the Supreme 
16 
Court, because they could include transcripts from both of Sherrell’s trials.  
17 
Then, if the common pleas court denied the postconviction relief petition, 
18 
 
5
they could go through the appellate process, ultimately appeal to the Ohio 
1 
Supreme Court with a more complete record than that which would be 
2 
available from Sherrell’s second trial. 
3 
 
With regard to Count I, the panel found that respondent had violated 
4 
DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2).  The panel also found that even though 
5 
respondent’s claimed appellate strategy might have been successful, it was 
6 
done without consulting with or obtaining the consent of the client, and was 
7 
an effort to cover up respondent’s failure to properly prosecute the appeal to 
8 
this court or to advise Sherrell of this court’s decision. 
9 
 
With respect to Count II, the panel found that there was no clear and 
10 
convincing evidence of any violation as charged in the complaint. 
11 
 
While the panel felt that a private reprimand may have been a more 
12 
suitable sanction, it recognized that such sanction is no longer available as 
13 
an option.  Therefore, the panel recommended a public reprimand for these 
14 
violations. 
15 
 
The board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the 
16 
panel and recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded and 
17 
further, that the costs of the proceedings be taxed to respondent. 
18 
 
6
 
_______________________________________________________  
1 
 
Seymour R. Brown, John R. Jewitt, Jr., and David A. Schaefer, for 
2 
relator. 
3 
 
Wesley A. Dumas, Sr., for respondent. 
4 
 
_______________________________________________________ 
5 
 
Per Curiam.  This court agrees with the findings and recommendation 
6 
of the board.  Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs taxed to 
7 
respondent. 
8 
Judgment accordingly. 
9 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
10 
and COOK, JJ., concur. 
11 
 
12