Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Taylor

Citation: 1998-Ohio-316

Docket Number: 19981242

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-12-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. TAYLOR. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Taylor (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 149.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with sanction suspended 
on condition — Neglecting to completely administer an estate. 
(No. 98-1242 — Submitted August 19, 1998 — Decided December 2, 
1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-86. 
 
In a complaint filed on October 15, 1996, relator, Columbus Bar 
Association, charged respondent, Anthony Richard Taylor of Columbus, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0026006, with professional misconduct, including 
violations of DR 6-101(A)(3)  (neglecting an entrusted legal matter) and 3-102(B) 
[sic, 3-101(B) ] (practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of regulations of the 
profession in that jurisdiction).  Respondent admitted to neglect in 
correspondence, but did not formerly answer as ordered, prompting relator to 
move for an entry of default.  See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). 
 
A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”) granted the motion, finding respondent in violation of 
the cited Disciplinary Rules because he had neglected to completely administer an 
estate and had been disciplined for failing to properly register as an attorney.  The 
panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one 
year.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but 
recommended a one-year suspension with the entire suspension stayed with 
probation and monitoring. 
__________________ 
 
William A. Good and Bruce A. Campbell, for relator. 
 
2
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We agree that respondent neglected his client’s probate case.  
Respondent agreed to represent the estate of Carryl Titus, a woman from whom he 
had rented lodging for many years and to whom he owed approximately one 
thousand dollars.  Once retained, respondent failed to include this debt in the 
inventory of estate assets, a mistake he attributed to lack of expertise.  Respondent 
also failed to timely file fiduciary accountings, for which the estate fiduciary was 
twice cited for contempt by the probate court.  The estate suffered no fines or 
penalties for this neglect, but respondent was jailed for his delay.  Respondent 
further failed to negotiate four checks written to pay credit card debts and taxes.  
He was eventually dismissed and replaced by another attorney. 
 
We have recognized that “[n]eglect of an entrusted matter warrants the 
sanction of suspension.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Clark (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 
302, 303, 677 N.E.2d 1181, 1182.  Thus, we also agree with the board’s decision 
to impose a one-year suspension for respondent’s neglect; however, we suspend 
imposition of this sanction on the condition that respondent commits no other 
disciplinary infractions.  We consider as mitigating the facts that respondent has 
hardly practiced at all since law school, accepting only a handful of friends’ 
domestic and criminal cases when he could not find other employment, and that he 
simply panicked when he found he did not know how to handle the Titus estate.  
His misconduct thus resulted purely from inexperience and a corresponding lack 
of confidence in his professional competence — not self-interest.  Under these 
circumstances, we find an inevitable actual suspension unnecessary. 
 
Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for one year, but this sanction is suspended on the condition that respondent 
commits no other professional misconduct.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
 
3
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.