Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith

Citation: 2002-Ohio-6728

Docket Number: 20021464

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-12-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith, 97 Ohio St.3d 497, 2002-Ohio-6728.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. SMITH. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith, 97 Ohio St.3d 497, 2002-Ohio-6728.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Failure to complete, or 
in some cases even begin, the representation for which attorney was 
retained — Financial improprieties in representation of clients — 
Misrepresentation on letterhead that attorney practiced law in partnership 
with another attorney and that the partnership was a licensed professional 
association — Improprieties in IOLTA — Failing to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 2002-1464 — Submitted October 15, 2002 — Decided December 18, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court, No. 01-72. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In October 2000, three separate grievances were filed against 
respondent, Charles E. Smith, Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0023633, 
by individuals who had retained his services.  Consequently, respondent was 
subpoenaed by relator, Columbus Bar Association, and in a March 7, 2001 
deposition, he addressed some of the grievances, attributing any misconduct to 
inadvertence associated with a heavy trial schedule.  Relator’s subsequent request for 
additional information went unheeded, as did an August 13, 2001 complaint against 
respondent. 
{¶ 2} Soon thereafter, three more grievances were filed against respondent 
by others who had retained him.  An amended complaint incorporating nine counts 
against respondent was filed and respondent again failed to file an answer. 
{¶ 3} Six counts arising directly from the aforementioned grievances were 
precipitated by respondent’s failure to complete—or in some cases even begin—the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
representation for which he was retained.  Four violations were common to each of 
these six counts: DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice 
law), DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal matter), DR 7-101(A)(2) (failure 
to carry out a contract of employment), and DR 9-102(B)(4) (failure to promptly 
return client’s funds or property).  In all but one of these six counts, respondent was 
charged with violating DR 2-106(A) (charging a clearly excessive fee).  Four counts 
alleged that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(1) (handling a matter attorney is not 
competent to handle) and DR 7-101(A)(1) (failure to seek lawful objectives of client).  
Violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation) and DR 7-101(A)(3) (intentionally damaging or prejudicing a 
client) were alleged in three and two counts respectively.  One count charged a 
violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administrative of justice). 
{¶ 4} In 
addition, 
financial 
improprieties 
plagued 
respondent’s 
representation of these clients, with four charged violations of DR 9-102(B)(3) 
(failure to maintain records of client’s funds and other property in attorney’s 
possession and to render appropriate accounts to the client) and two charged 
violations of DR 9-102(A)(2) (failure to preserve identity of client’s funds). 
{¶ 5} Apart from the six counts related to representation of specific clients, 
three further counts were levied against respondent.  The first arose from 
respondent’s misrepresentation on his letterhead that he practiced law in partnership 
with another attorney and that the partnership was a licensed professional association.  
These misrepresentations generated charges of violating DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and DR 2-102(C) (falsely 
holding self out as having a partnership with one or more lawyers). 
{¶ 6} Another count alleged improprieties in the keeping of his IOLTA trust 
account.  Respondent was accused of noncompliance with both DR 9-102(A) and 
(B). 
{¶ 7} The final count arose out of respondent’s failure to cooperate with 
relator’s investigation and these disciplinary proceedings.  This noncooperation 
January Term, 2002 
 
3 
generated charges of violating DR 1-102(A)(6) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (duty to 
cooperate with an investigation). 
{¶ 8} Respondent’s failure to answer these charges resulted in relator’s 
motion for default judgment on March 15, 2002, and the matter was referred to a 
master commissioner for the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  
On April 10, 2002, relator moved for interim remedial suspension of respondent.  The 
motion was granted by this court on May 23, 2002, and an interim remedial 
suspension was imposed.  Gov.Bar R. V(5a). 
{¶ 9} The master commissioner concurred in relator’s recommended 
sanction of indefinite suspension.  His findings of fact and conclusions of law were 
adopted by the board, which recommended an indefinite suspension from the practice 
of law in Ohio, with the suspension being retroactive to May 23, 2002. 
{¶ 10} Upon review of the record, we adopt the findings and conclusions of 
the board.  We adopt the recommendation that respondent be indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio, but decline to apply the suspension retroactively.  
We instead order the suspension to begin with the announcement of this opinion.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Heather G. Sowald, David S. Jump, Bruce A. Campbell and Jill M. Snitcher 
McQuain, for relator. 
__________________