Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Harp

Citation: 2001-Ohio-48

Docket Number: 20001891

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-04-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Harp, 91 Ohio St.3d 385, 2001-Ohio-48.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HARP. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Harp (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 385.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with entire six months 
stayed — Probation for six months with law practice monitored by a 
local attorney — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Intentionally 
failing to seek legal objectives of client — Failing to carry out contract 
for professional services — Prejudicing or damaging client during 
course of professional relationship. 
(No. 00-1891 — Submitted December 13, 2000 — Decided April 18, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-44. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In 1994, Gary York hired respondent, Edward Harp of 
Georgetown, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0023236, to appeal a finding of the 
Industrial 
Commission 
disallowing 
his 
workers’ 
compensation 
claim.  
Respondent filed York’s appeal, but failed to file a response when the state moved 
to dismiss for lack of prosecution.  As a result, York’s appeal was dismissed and 
respondent, after learning of the dismissal, took no action to attempt to set it 
aside. 
 
Earlier, in 1993, Mickel and Debbie Long engaged respondent and paid 
him $250 to collect a judgment in Tennessee.  Respondent took no action in the 
matter until informed by the Longs in 1998 that the judgment debtor had moved 
to Virginia, when respondent engaged local counsel for assistance in that state.  
However, respondent not only failed to forward the necessary paperwork to local 
Virginia counsel, but he allowed the matter to languish for more than five years.  
During that time, the Longs became increasingly dissatisfied with respondent’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
failure to communicate with them.  In January 1999, respondent terminated the 
services of local counsel, and in February 1999, respondent himself withdrew 
from representation, leaving the Longs without counsel in either state. 
 
Still earlier, from 1987 through 1999, by meeting with Donald Crawford 
and preparing several complaints that were never filed, respondent led Crawford 
to believe that he would file a complaint in the Ohio Court of Claims for injuries 
that Crawford received while incarcerated in prison. 
 
Based on grievances received from York, the Longs, and Crawford, 
relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed an amended complaint on February 
28, 2000, charging respondent with violation of several Disciplinary Rules.  
Respondent answered, and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of  
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
After conducting a hearing and receiving stipulations of the parties, the 
panel found the facts as stated and concluded that in each matter respondent’s 
conduct had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(1) (intentionally failing to seek the legal objectives of the client), 7-
101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract for professional services), and 7-
101(A)(3) (prejudicing or damaging a client during the course of the professional 
relationship). 
 
In mitigation, the panel found that respondent had demonstrated remorse.  
Respondent admitted that he had failed to properly calendar the York matter and 
had not followed through for the Longs, who had a malpractice action pending 
against him.  In addition, Crawford had been a long-term client of respondent’s 
and from 1987 through 1999, respondent had handled numerous matters for 
Crawford, including a potential divorce action, a charge of disorderly conduct, a 
bankruptcy for him and his wife, and a case involving Crawford’s daughter.  
Respondent explained that his investigation of Crawford’s prison stay revealed 
that Crawford was guilty not only of the crimes of which he was convicted, but 
January Term, 2001 
3 
also of other felonies.  Moreover, respondent could develop no facts to support 
Crawford’s alleged mistreatment in prison.  In further mitigation, the panel found 
that as late as January 2000, Crawford continued to contact respondent for legal 
representation in other matters.  Finally, the panel found that respondent presented 
evidence that he had taken steps to reduce his caseload, increase his staff, and 
adopt management practices to avoid these problems in the future. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice 
of law for six months with the entire six months stayed and that for the next year 
respondent be placed on probation, with his law practice monitored by a local 
attorney selected by the mutual consent of the relator and the respondent.  The 
board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel, but modified the 
recommendation to reduce the probation period to six months. 
 
After a review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice 
of law for six months with the entire six months stayed.  Effective immediately, 
respondent is placed on probation for six months, with his law practice to be 
monitored by a local attorney selected by relator and respondent.  Failure to 
satisfy the conditions of his probation will result in reinstatement of respondent’s 
stayed suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Peter Rosenwald, for respondent. 
__________________