Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Boylan

Citation: 1999-Ohio-255

Docket Number: 19982637

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-03-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Boylan, 85 Ohio St.3d 115, 1999-Ohio-255.] 
 
 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BOYLAN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Boylan (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 115.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglect of an entrusted 
legal matter — Failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 98-2637 — Submitted January 27, 1999 — Decided March 17, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-38. 
 
On June 8, 1998, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a two-count 
complaint charging that respondent, Michael M. Boylan of Elyria, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0010201, violated several Disciplinary Rules and a Rule for the 
Government of the Bar.  Relator alleged in count one that in 1994, the Lorain 
County Court of Common Pleas appointed respondent as counsel for Thomas 
Flood in a criminal case.  In September 1995, the common pleas court convicted 
Flood on two counts of felonious assault and sentenced him.  Respondent filed a 
notice of appeal on behalf of Flood and was appointed his attorney for purposes of 
appeal.  Although respondent was notified that the transcript had been filed and 
that if he failed to file his brief by August 15, 1996, the appeal would be 
dismissed, respondent did not file a brief and Flood’s appeal was consequently 
dismissed with prejudice.  Respondent failed to notify Flood that his appeal had 
been dismissed. 
 
In count two, relator alleged that after Flood filed a grievance with relator, 
relator issued two letters of inquiry requiring respondent to submit a response to 
the grievance.  Respondent received the letters but did not respond to them.  The 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board”) then issued a subpoena duces tecum requiring respondent to appear and 
 
 
2
testify at a deposition in April 1998.  A deputy sheriff personally served 
respondent with the subpoena, but respondent failed to appear at the deposition.  
After being contacted by relator, respondent ultimately agreed to attend a second 
deposition. 
 
The board served the complaint on respondent, but respondent did not file 
an answer.  On September 18, 1998, relator filed a motion for default judgment. 
 
A panel of the board heard the matter and, based on the complaint, motion, 
and attached exhibits, the panel found the facts as alleged and found that 
respondent was in default.  The panel did not specify the violations committed by 
respondent but recommended that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice 
of law.  The panel emphasized that in respondent’s deposition, which was attached 
to relator’s motion for default judgment, respondent failed to admit or explain the 
alleged misconduct, failed to explain his failure to cooperate in the disciplinary 
investigation, and displayed a lack of remorse for his misconduct. 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel, and further specified that the panel had adopted as its conclusions of law 
those set forth in relator’s complaint.1  By adopting the conclusions in relator’s 
complaint, the board found that respondent’s conduct in failing to file an appellate 
brief for Flood violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to 
the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely 
reflects on fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal 
matter), 7-101(A)(1) (intentionally failing to seek client’s lawful objectives 
through reasonably available means permitted by law and the Disciplinary Rules), 
7-101(A)(2) (intentionally failing to carry out an employment contract for 
professional services), and 7-101(A)(3) (intentionally prejudicing or damaging 
client during course of professional relationship).  The board also found that 
 
 
3
respondent’s conduct after Flood filed a grievance violated DR 1-102(A)(6) 
(engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in investigation of a disciplinary 
proceeding). 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Michael M. Boylan, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  The sanction of an indefinite suspension from the practice of law “is 
especially fitting  * * * where neglect of a legal matter is coupled with a failure to 
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.”  Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Lieser (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 488, 490, 683 N.E.2d 1148, 1149; see, also, Akron 
Bar Assn. v. Barnett (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 269, 685 N.E.2d 1230.  The record 
establishes that respondent exhibited a cavalier attitude toward both the 
representation of his client and the ensuing disciplinary investigation.  Respondent 
is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
FOOTNOTE: 
1. 
As noted previously, the panel report does not contain an express statement 
adopting the conclusions of the complaint.