Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson

Citation: 2004-Ohio-6555

Docket Number: 20040432

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-12-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson, 104 Ohio St.3d 313, 2004-Ohio-6555.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL  v. JOHNSON. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson, 104 Ohio St.3d 313, 2004-Ohio-
6555.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Disbarment — Conduct prejudicial to administration 
of justice — Neglect of client’s legal matters — Conduct adversely 
reflecting on fitness to practice law — Intentionally damaging or 
prejudicing client — Failing to cooperate in investigation of misconduct 
— Previous discipline for other serious misconduct. 
(No. 2004-0432 — Submitted August 17, 2004 — Decided December 15, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-070. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jacqueline L. Tullos Johnson of New Albany, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0029249, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1982.  On November 12, 2003, we indefinitely suspended respondent’s license to 
practice law for seriously mishandling an incarcerated client’s company, lying 
about it, and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary process, among other 
transgressions.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson, 100 Ohio St.3d 291, 2003-Ohio-
5753, 798 N.E.2d 604. 
{¶ 2} While that case was still pending in this court, relator, Disciplinary 
Counsel, charged respondent with four more counts of professional misconduct, 
including a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring an attorney to cooperate in 
an investigation of misconduct).  Respondent was served with the complaint but 
did not answer.  On December 22, 2003, relator moved for default, and 
respondent did not file a response.  See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline reviewed and granted the motion, making findings of misconduct and a 
recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
Count I — The Pontious Grievance 
{¶ 3} Pearl and Geraldine Pontious retained respondent in September 
1999 to represent them in a personal-injury action and to prepare wills and powers 
of attorney for them.  The couple agreed to a contingent fee in the civil suit and 
paid respondent $550 to prepare the estate-planning documents and for the filing 
fee in the civil case. 
{¶ 4} Respondent obtained a judgment for her clients in their personal-
injury case; however, she failed during the representation to respond timely to 
discovery requests and to appear at a scheduled pretrial conference.  Because of 
her inattentiveness, the trial court granted a motion to compel discovery and to 
exclude certain medical evidence.  The trial court also cited respondent for 
contempt and fined her $250 for failing to appear and show cause why she should 
not be sanctioned for failing to appear at the pretrial conference. 
{¶ 5} Several times during her representation of the Pontiouses, 
respondent failed to keep scheduled appointments.  On one occasion, the 
Pontiouses arrived at respondent’s office for an appointment only to discover that 
respondent had moved, leaving no forwarding address.  As for the estate-planning 
documents, respondent failed to prepare them. 
{¶ 6} The board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) 
(barring an attorney from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice) and 6-101(A)(3) (barring an attorney from neglecting an entrusted legal 
matter) by failing to conscientiously attend to proceedings involving the 
Pontiouses’ personal-injury action and their estate-planning concerns.  The board 
also found a violation of DR 2-106 (prohibiting an attorney from collecting an 
January Term, 2004 
3 
excessive fee) because the Pontiouses had paid for documents that respondent 
never prepared. 
Count II — The Grinnell Grievance 
{¶ 7} Tod Grinnell retained respondent in July 2001 to file a bankruptcy 
petition on his behalf.  Grinnell paid respondent $750 in attorney and filing fees.  
Thereafter, respondent failed to return Grinnell’s calls.  After Grinnell threatened 
to file a grievance against respondent because she had not filed his bankruptcy 
petition, respondent met with him on October 27, 2001, to complete the necessary 
paperwork.  At that time, respondent told Grinnell that the bankruptcy court 
would send him a case number and a court date. 
{¶ 8} In November 2001, respondent sent Grinnell an application to pay 
the court filing fees in installments.  Grinnell called respondent to remind her that 
he had already given her the money for the filing fee.  Respondent told Grinnell 
she would check his file and call him right back; she never called.  In December 
2001, Grinnell wrote to respondent and left numerous telephone messages at her 
office, asking about the status of his case.  Respondent did not reply.  Grinnell 
wrote respondent again in January 2002, this time sending the letter by certified 
mail, but it was returned unclaimed.  Respondent never did file the bankruptcy 
petition. 
{¶ 9} The board found that respondent’s actions in relation to Grinnell 
violated DR 2-106 and 6-101(A)(3). 
Count III — The Hoppel Grievance 
{¶ 10} In June 2001, Rhonda Hoppel retained respondent to represent her 
in a domestic-relations case.  In August 2002, while still representing Hoppel, 
respondent hired her to do some office work and to clean respondent’s home and 
office.  Respondent wrote a $750 check to compensate Hoppel for her work.  The 
check bounced.  Respondent also wrote two other bad checks, one to Hoppel’s 
mother and one to her cousin. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 11} Hoppel left numerous messages on respondent’s voicemail, trying 
to collect the money respondent owed her.  Respondent never returned her calls.  
On October 4, 2002, when Hoppel finally did reach her, respondent immediately 
hung up.  Later that month, Hoppel asked another attorney for help.  The new 
attorney wrote to respondent but apparently received no reply. 
{¶ 12} In November 2002, Hoppel received notice of a hearing on a 
motion for contempt to be held on November 25, 2002, in her domestic-relations 
case.  She repeatedly tried to contact respondent to find out whether respondent 
was going to represent her at the hearing.  On November 8, 2002, respondent sent 
Hoppel a letter advising that Hoppel needed to pay $2,000 by November 13 or 
respondent would withdraw from her case.  When Hoppel received the letter on 
November 12, she left respondent a telephone message, but respondent did not 
reply until November 18, when she refused to turn over Hoppel’s file until Hoppel 
paid $200 for copies. 
{¶ 13} Respondent moved to withdraw as counsel in Hoppel’s case, and 
although the court did not rule on the motion before the contempt hearing, 
respondent did not appear at the hearing.  Hoppel proceeded without counsel, 
admitted having violated a court order, and was cited for contempt.  At Hoppel’s 
request, the court discharged respondent as Hoppel’s attorney and ordered 
respondent to show cause why she should not be found in contempt for failing to 
appear. 
{¶ 14} Respondent was served with notice of the contempt hearing 
scheduled for January 17, 2003, but she did not appear.  The court ordered that a 
warrant be issued for respondent’s arrest but stayed the order provided that she 
appear at a March 7, 2003 hearing.  Respondent also did not appear on that date, 
and the court issued a bench warrant for her arrest. 
{¶ 15} For respondent’s conduct with respect to Hoppel, the board found 
respondent in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that 
January Term, 2004 
5 
adversely reflects on an attorney’s fitness to practice law), 2-110(A)(1) (barring 
withdrawal from representation without a tribunal’s permission), 2-110(A)(2) 
(barring withdrawal from representation without taking reasonable steps to avoid 
prejudice to client), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(3) (barring intentionally 
prejudicing or damaging a client). 
Count IV –Failure to Cooperate 
{¶ 16} Despite numerous attempts to obtain respondent’s cooperation in 
the disciplinary process, respondent never replied to any of these grievants’ 
allegations.  At least six letters of inquiry were returned unclaimed.  Moreover, 
relator alleges that a March 2003 attempt to subpoena respondent failed because 
the process server found her home at the address on file with the Attorney 
Registration Section abandoned.  In addition, respondent failed to notify the 
Attorney Registration Section of her business address.  For this conduct, the board 
found that respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and VI(1)(D) (requiring 
attorneys to keep their current residence and office address on file with the 
Attorney Registration Section). 
Sanction 
{¶ 17} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
reviewed the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  As an 
aggravating circumstance, the board found that respondent is already serving an 
indefinite suspension for misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a).  Also in 
aggravation, the board found a pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses and 
that respondent had failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), and (e).  And because all the misconduct in Count 
Three of the complaint occurred after the formal complaint had been filed in the 
earlier disciplinary case, the board found that respondent’s “conduct reflected a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
total disregard” for the authority of courts, the administration of justice, and the 
interests of her clients.  The board found no mitigating evidence. 
{¶ 18} Consistent with the relator’s suggestion and the master 
commissioner’s recommendation, the board recommended that respondent be 
permanently disbarred. 
{¶ 19} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5); 
1-102(A)(6); 2-106; 2-110(A)(1) and (2); 6-101(A)(3); and 7-101(A)(3) and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and VI(1)(D), as found by the board.  We further find that 
disbarment is appropriate. Respondent has seriously and repeatedly neglected her 
clients and has ignored investigative inquiries of grievances against her and 
resulting disciplinary proceedings.  No mitigating evidence justifies leniency. 
{¶ 20} Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________