Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Wolfrom

Citation: 1998-Ohio-418

Docket Number: 19972634

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-08-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. WOLFROM. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Wolfrom (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 1.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Receiving fees for 
services not performed — Failing to assist in disciplinary investigation — 
Default of a child support order. 
(No. 97-2634 — Submitted May 13, 1998 — Decided August 12, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-15. 
 
In a complaint filed on February 18, 1997, relator, Columbus Bar 
Association, charged that on three separate occasions respondent, Carl T. Wolfrom 
of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0019564, received fees for services 
that he failed to perform.  After respondent answered, the matter was heard by a 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme 
Court (“board”). 
 
The panel found with respect to count one that in September 1995, Ralph 
Allen Griffith of Lancaster employed respondent as an additional attorney and paid 
him a retainer of $5,000 to represent him in a misdemeanor case involving charges 
of aggravated menacing and production of marijuana.  Respondent spoke with the 
county prosecutor, found that the misdemeanor charges would be dismissed and a 
felony charge substituted, and did nothing further to represent Griffith in the 
misdemeanor matter.  In December 1995, based on the same facts, a grand jury 
indicted Griffith on similar felony charges.  Aside from appearing unannounced in 
early 1996 at a hearing in the felony case on a motion to suppress filed by 
Griffith’s original attorney, respondent took no other action on behalf of Griffith.  
Griffith entered a plea of guilty with respect to the marijuana felony charge.  
Respondent then failed to respond to Griffith’s request that he return the $5,000 
retainer.  Respondent admitted and the panel found that respondent had violated 
 
2
DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting upon the fitness to 
practice law), 2-106(A) (charging a clearly excessive fee), and 6-101(A)(3) 
(neglecting an entrusted legal matter). 
 
The second count considered by the panel involved Joseph Thompson, 
whom respondent represented in 1991 when Thompson was prosecuted for 
aggravated vehicular homicide.  When Thompson was denied parole in 1994 after 
serving three years of a five-to-ten-year prison term, his parents informed 
respondent of the denial by mail.  Respondent then telephoned the parents several 
times, indicating that he could get Thompson released on parole by the holidays, 
meaning Christmas of 1994.  The parents paid respondent a retainer of $8,500.  
Respondent visited Thompson in the penitentiary several times and spoke with the 
prosecutor. After Christmas in 1994, when their son was not released, the parents 
were neither able to contact respondent by telephone for over a year, nor to obtain 
a refund of the $8,500.  The panel found that respondent, by soliciting legal work 
where the likelihood of providing meaningful legal services was nil, violated DR 
1-102(A)(6), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation), and 2-106(A). 
 
The panel found that in March 1996, respondent agreed to represent Paul 
Suber, who was wanted by federal authorities for a drug offense in Atlanta.  
Respondent received a fee of $7,500 from Suber’s parents on the understanding 
that he would aid Suber in surrendering, and would attempt to secure a favorable 
plea bargain for him.  Suber’s parents expected that respondent would travel to 
Atlanta, Georgia, and talk to federal officials about their son’s case.  Respondent 
denied any such promise.  He did attempt unsuccessfully to talk with federal agents 
in Atlanta by telephone. Respondent also visited Suber on several occasions after 
Suber was arrested in Columbus, Ohio, in April 1996, and attended a hearing on 
his behalf.  Suber discharged respondent in June 1996.  The panel concluded that 
 
3
respondent’s actions and failures to act in the Suber matter violated DR 1-
102(A)(6) and 2-106(A). 
 
The panel also found that for nine months after relator’s investigation began, 
until respondent obtained the services of an attorney,  respondent failed to 
cooperate with relator’s investigation in violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no 
attorney shall refuse to assist in a disciplinary investigation). 
 
In mitigation, respondent offered letters from five judges and an attorney 
testifying to his character and ability.  He also presented evidence that during the 
time of the violations, he was addicted to alcohol and was going through a divorce.  
Respondent indicated that in April 1997, he joined the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program and at the time of the hearing was in compliance with its requirements. 
 
In June 1997, the board was notified that the Franklin County Child Support 
Enforcement Agency had determined that respondent was in default of a child 
support order. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law, that he make restitution for the unearned funds received from 
Griffith, Thompson, and Suber, and that he satisfy all child support arrearages.  
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Terry K. Sherman and Bruce A. Campbell, for relator. 
 
Dennis W. McNamara, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Having reviewed the record, we adopt the findings and 
conclusions of the board.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law.  Respondent is further ordered to make restitution for the unearned 
funds received from Griffith, Thompson, and Suber with statutory interest, and 
 
4
bring his child support obligations current with statutory interest and remain in 
compliance with those obligations.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.