Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Harwood

Citation: 1999-Ohio-303

Docket Number: 19990372

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-10-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Harwood, 87 Ohio St.3d 123, 1999-Ohio-303.] 
 
 
 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. HARWOOD. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Harwood (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 123.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with second year stayed 
and two years of probation — Failing to represent six clients adequately. 
(No. 99-372 — Submitted June 8, 1999 — Decided October 13, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-106. 
 
On December 24, 1997, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a second 
amended complaint charging respondent, David J. Harwood of Cincinnati, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0014177, with violating several Disciplinary Rules in 
connection with his failure to represent six clients adequately.  Respondent 
answered, and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
The panel found that James P. Povlock retained respondent in 1995 to file a 
quiet-title action against Povlock’s former fiancée with respect to certain real 
estate.  Although respondent repeatedly told Povlock that the suit was proceeding, 
in fact, respondent had not filed it.  In the meantime, the former fiancée filed a suit 
against Povlock, who again engaged respondent to represent him.  Respondent 
failed to file an answer in that suit, and the fiancée obtained a default judgment 
 
2 
against Povlock. 
 
In 1994, Mr. and Mrs. David Emmons retained respondent to negotiate with 
a builder with respect to construction defects in their residence.  After negotiations 
were unsuccessful, the Emmonses instructed respondent to file suit against the 
builder.  Respondent did not file the suit but led the Emmonses to believe that he 
had done so.  When the Emmonses finally confronted respondent with that fact, 
respondent filed the suit.  The Emmonses dismissed respondent and retained other 
counsel. 
 
In late 1995, Gary and Karen Carter employed respondent to represent them 
in a dispute with the purchasers of real estate they had sold.  When the purchasers 
sued the Carters, respondent filed an answer on their behalf.  However, respondent 
failed to respond to interrogatories and document requests.  After respondent did 
not appear for the scheduled trial, the trial court entered a default judgment in the 
amount of $11,000 against the Carters, together with a $1,000 sanction for failure 
to respond to discovery.  With the help of new counsel, the Carters settled the case 
for $9,680 and respondent paid the Carters $2,200. 
 
In 1990, respondent represented Mr. and Mrs. John Payne with respect to 
defects in a home they had purchased.  Respondent falsely claimed that he had 
delivered a demand letter to the sellers and had filed a lawsuit against them.  The 
Paynes later discovered respondent’s failure and hired new counsel. 
 
3 
 
Also in 1991, David Seuberling retained respondent to defend him and his 
company in a lawsuit.  Respondent failed to file an answer or motion to the 
complaint or the amended complaint, and the court entered a default judgment 
against Seuberling for approximately $25,000.  When the plaintiff commenced 
execution proceedings on the judgment, respondent told Seuberling he would file a 
“60(B) motion.”  Respondent failed to file the motion. 
 
Again in 1991, respondent filed an answer and counterclaim on behalf of his 
clients, Maurice and Daniel Green.  However, respondent then failed to respond to 
discovery requests, or to the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.  As a result, the 
plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the Greens and moved for the 
appointment of a receiver to preserve the Greens’ assets.  Eventually, with the help 
of successor counsel, the Greens settled the case. 
 
The panel concluded that with respect to all six matters, respondent violated 
DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal matter), and 7-101(A)(2) (failure to 
carry out contract of employment to provide legal services).  With respect to the 
Povlock and Emmons matters, the panel concluded that respondent also violated 
DR 
1-102(A)(4) 
(conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on a lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law). The panel also found that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 
 
4 
1-102(A)(6) in his representation of Carter, Seuberling, and Green. 
 
In mitigation the panel found that respondent was a respected member of the 
Cincinnati Bar Association, and of the Ohio State and American Bar Associations, 
serving on their real estate committees; that he was a frequent lecturer on real 
estate matters; and that he was active in community matters.  Several witnesses 
attested to respondent’s honesty and legal competence.  The panel found that at the 
time of his professional misconduct, the respondent suffered from major depressive 
disorder due to personal problems involving his parents’ illnesses, his wife’s 
parents’ illnesses, and his being hit by an automobile.  His treating psychiatrist 
testified that with continuing treatment and medication respondent should be able 
to carry on the practice of law in a competent manner.  Respondent indicated that 
he recognized the nature of his psychological problem, his misconduct, and his 
need for continued treatment.  The respondent also testified that complete 
restitution had been made to the clients he injured. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law for two years, with the second year stayed and two years of probation 
substituted for the second year.  The panel also recommended that to resume 
practice during and after the probationary period, respondent demonstrate that he 
remains under the care of his treating psychiatrist, who will have made and will 
continue to make reports to a monitoring attorney appointed by relator. 
 
5 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel but added a recommendation that respondent have co-counsel in any 
litigation matter during his probation. 
__________________ 
 
Maury M. Tepper, for relator. 
 
John H. Phillips, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  
Respondent’s conduct resulted in harm to his clients, including three default 
judgments that could affect future credit ratings.  However, we also recognize that 
respondent has acknowledged his problem and that he regrets his failure to live up 
to his duties as a member of the bar. 
 
We therefore agree with the board that respondent should be and he hereby 
is suspended from the practice of law for two years.  We stay the second year and 
substitute two years of probation.  As a condition of respondent’s resuming the 
practice of law during and after the probationary period, we require evidence that 
respondent was and is remaining under the care of his treating psychiatrist who 
will have made and will continue to make reports to a monitoring attorney 
appointed by relator. 
 
We do not agree with the board’s recommendation that respondent be 
 
6 
required to employ co-counsel whenever he becomes involved in litigation.  
However, because the record indicates that respondent’s current problems are the 
result of confrontational situations, we recommend that respondent limit his 
practice as much as possible to transactional matters and avoid litigation. 
 
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., concurs in judgment only.