Case Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kehn

Citation: 2007-Ohio-809

Docket Number: 20061925

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-03-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kehn, 112 Ohio St.3d 547, 2007-Ohio-809.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. KEHN. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kehn,  
112 Ohio St.3d 547, 2007-Ohio-809.] 
Attorneys – Misconduct – Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation – 
Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law – Six-month 
suspension stayed on condition. 
(No. 2006-1925 — Submitted November 29, 2006 — Decided March 14, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-039. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, James M. Kehn of Lyndhurst, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0013316, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1971. 
{¶ 2} On June 12, 2006, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, 
charged respondent with professional misconduct involving violations of DR 1-
102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects 
on his fitness to practice law) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to 
cooperate in disciplinary proceedings). Respondent was served with the complaint 
but did not answer, and relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar 
R.V(6)(F)(1).  A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline granted the motion and made findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and a recommendation.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The board found respondent in violation of both DR 1-102(A)(6) 
and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) because he had failed to comply as promised with bar 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
association procedures to resolve his fee dispute with a former client and to 
respond during relator’s investigation of the allegations against him. 
{¶ 4} This cause initially came before the board as a grievance from 
Gregory Triplett, whom respondent had represented after Triplett sustained 
injuries in a motorcycle accident.  The personal-injury case settled, but Triplett 
claimed that respondent had failed to pay various medical expenses from the 
settlement proceeds as they had agreed.  Triplett filed a grievance, but the board 
did not find probable cause for issuing a formal complaint on the grievance at that 
time.  The board determined that underlying the grievance was a fee dispute that 
respondent and Triplett could resolve by mediation or other dispute-resolution 
alternatives available through relator’s lawyer/client relations committee. 
{¶ 5} Attempts to mediate the fee dispute were unsuccessful, and 
respondent and Triplett agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration.  Pursuant to 
that election, the chairman of the lawyer/client relations committee scheduled an 
arbitration proceeding for August 30, 2005, but rescheduled it when respondent 
represented that he would be unable to attend.  Despite this representation, 
respondent inexplicably showed up for the August 30 arbitration.  Then, when the 
arbitration was rescheduled for September 8, 2005, respondent failed to appear, 
claiming that he did not have effective notice. 
{¶ 6} The arbitration was rescheduled again, this time for November 11, 
2005, and all parties were provided notice by letter dated October 13, 2005.  
Respondent again did not appear.  As a result, the arbitration panel awarded 
Triplett $10,177.87, the amount of the expenses that he claimed respondent failed 
to pay.  In a letter dated December 3, 2005, Triplett’s new attorney asked that 
respondent comply with the arbitration award.  Respondent did not comply. 
{¶ 7} The chairman of the lawyer/client relations committee referred the 
matter of respondent’s failure to cooperate and comply with the arbitration 
proceedings to relator’s certified grievance committee for investigation.  Around 
January Term, 2007 
3 
December 7, 2005, relator assigned an investigator to the Triplett case.  
Respondent wrote to the investigator on January 23, 2006, incorrectly observing 
that relator was attempting to pursue the same claims in the second investigation 
that it had in response to Triplett’s original grievance.  According to respondent, 
res judicata thus operated to preclude the new investigation.  Relator did not 
agree. 
{¶ 8} On January 27, 2006, the investigator sent a letter of inquiry by 
certified mail to respondent in an attempt to learn why respondent had not 
complied with the arbitration award.  Respondent received the letter on January 
30, 2006, and promptly wrote back, agreeing to meet with the investigator when 
convenient.  On February 6, 2006, the investigator left a voicemail for respondent, 
urgently asking respondent to return his call.  The next day, the investigator faxed 
a letter to respondent, again asking respondent to contact him immediately.  
Respondent never did. 
{¶ 9} At some point, Triplett and his attorney filed a complaint in 
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court for an order to confirm the arbitration 
award.  Respondent answered and filed a counterclaim, asserting as an affirmative 
defense that the board decision not to issue a formal complaint was res judicata 
and prevented confirmation of the November 11, 2005 arbitration award. 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 10} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
board weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors of his case.  See Section 10 
of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings 
Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD 
Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶ 11} Adopting the master commissioner’s report, the board found that 
respondent had no prior disciplinary record, a mitigating factor under BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).  The board further found that respondent had failed to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
cooperate in the disciplinary process, had refused to acknowledge the wrongful 
nature of his conduct, and had not made restitution, all aggravating factors under 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e), (g), and (i). 
{¶ 12} Relator did not specify which sanction it felt should be imposed for 
respondent’s misconduct.  “In light of the single offense resulting in actual 
prejudice to the client and to the administration of justice, and because of 
Respondent’s failure to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation, and his failure 
to make restitution,” however, the master commissioner recommended that 
respondent receive a six-month suspension from the practice of law, with the 
suspension stayed on the condition that respondent comply with the November 
11, 2005 arbitration award.  The board adopted that recommendation. 
{¶ 13} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) 
and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and that a six-month stayed suspension is appropriate. 
{¶ 14} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for six months; however, the suspension is stayed on the condition that 
respondent comply with the November 11, 2005 arbitration award within 60 days 
of our order.  If respondent fails to comply with the condition of the stay, the stay 
shall be lifted, and respondent shall serve the entire six-month suspension.  Costs 
are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL 
and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
CUPP, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
McDonald Hopkins Co., L.P.A., and Steven L. Gardner; Law Office of 
Andrea L. Burdell-Ware, and Andrea L. Burdell-Ware; and Ellen S. Mandell, bar 
counsel, for relator. 
______________________