Case Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Lewis

Citation: 1999-Ohio-418

Docket Number: 19981707

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-02-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. LEWIS. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Lewis (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law – Misconduct – Indefinite suspension – Engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation – Engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law – Failing to 
promptly notify client of receipt of client’s funds – Failing to maintain 
complete records of all of client’s funds – Failing to deposit all funds paid 
by client into one or more identifiable bank accounts in which no funds of 
lawyer have been deposited – Engaging in conduct involving moral 
turpitude – Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice – Failing to file federal, state, and local income tax returns – 
Previous stayed suspension. 
(No. 98-1707 — Submitted October 28, 1998 — Decided February 17, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-4. 
 
On December 3, 1997, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed an amended 
complaint charging respondent, Gordon H. Lewis of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0023561, with the violation of several Disciplinary Rules in his 
representation of a client, Tina M. Smith, and in his failure to file federal, state, 
and local income tax returns.  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 prior to June 1995, Tina Smith engaged respondent to 
file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case.  The documents filed in the case show that the 
Chapter 13 fee to be paid through the plan was $800; however, Smith later 
testified that she was not aware of the amount of the fee.  Smith’s case was 
 
2
dismissed in October 1995 because she did not make payments contemplated by 
her Chapter 13 plan.  In December 1995, respondent received a refund check from 
the bankruptcy trustee payable to Smith in the amount of $563.50.  Respondent 
claims that on December 19, 1995, he called Smith, who was then living in 
Florida, and they agreed that he should keep the money as his fee, which he said 
had been earned but not paid.  Respondent claimed that Smith gave him telephone 
authority to cash the check; hence, he had his secretary endorse it by signing 
Smith’s name and then deposit it into his trust account.  However, two weeks later, 
Smith called respondent and, after arguing about the fee, Smith and respondent 
agreed that $400 should be sent to Smith and that only the balance should be 
applied to respondent’s attorney fee.  Respondent did not pay the $400 to Smith 
until May 15, 1996, transmitting the money by means of two money orders for 
$200 each.  From December to May 1996, respondent made several withdrawals 
from his trust account and, at one point, the account balance was under $85.  
Respondent did not maintain records of deposits to or disbursements from his trust 
account. 
 
The panel also found that respondent filed a personal Chapter 13 bankruptcy 
case for himself in May 1996.  Respondent, who had failed to file federal, state, 
and local tax returns for the years 1991 through 1996, testified in an appearance 
before the bankruptcy trustee that he had received extensions to file from the tax 
authorities.  He then failed to comply with the bankruptcy court’s order to file the 
returns on or before December 10, 1996.  Later, by failing to respond to relator’s 
requests for admissions, respondent admitted that he had received no extensions to 
file tax returns. No criminal charges were brought against respondent with respect 
to his failure to file tax returns. 
 
3
 
The panel concluded that with respect to his representation of Smith, 
respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct 
that adversely reflects upon the attorney’s fitness to practice law), 9-102(B)(1) 
(failing to promptly notify a client of the receipt of her funds), 9-102(B)(3) (failing 
to maintain complete records of all funds of the client), and 9-102(A) (failing to 
deposit all funds paid by a client to a lawyer in one or more identifiable bank 
accounts in which no funds of the lawyer are deposited). 
 
With respect to the counts relating to respondent’s tax returns, the panel 
concluded that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in conduct 
involving moral turpitude), (4), (5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), and (6).  The panel also noted that respondent was 
previously suspended for two years with the entire suspension stayed pending 
successful completion of a two-year probationary period.  Dayton Bar Assn. v. 
Lewis (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 5, 623 N.E.2d 23.  The panel recommended that 
respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  The board adopted 
the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Howard P. Krisher and Nikki J. Palmer, for relator. 
 
Herbert Creech, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board. 
 
Respondent’s conduct, including his failure to file tax returns coupled with 
his disregard of the bankruptcy judge’s order to file them, warrants serious 
disciplinary consequences. 
 
4
 
Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended 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.