Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Summers

Citation: 1996-Ohio-245

Docket Number: 19952528

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Summers. 
1 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Summers (1996), ____________ Ohio 
2 
St.3d ______.] 
3 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Failing to 
4 
promptly pay or deliver funds client is entitled to receive -- 
5 
Failing to carry out contract of employment -- Engaging in 
6 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice -- 
7 
Neglecting an entrusted legal matter. 
8 
 
(No. 95-2528 -- Submitted January 24, 1996-- Decided February 28, 
9 
1996.) 
10 
 
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
11 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-54. 
12 
 
In an amended complaint filed August 24, 1995 with the Board of 
13 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
14 
(“board”), relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent, 
15 
Robert Lee Summers of Millersport, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
16 
0034280, with two counts of professional misconduct.  Respondent was 
17 
served notice of the complaint and amended complaint, but failed to 
18 
 
2
formally answer. 1 A panel appointed by the board heard the matter on 
1 
relator’s motion for default, filed pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). 
2 
 
With respect to Count I, evidence submitted with the motion for 
3 
default established that Daniel Crawford hired respondent on September 13, 
4 
1994 to file a mechanic’s lien, paying him one hundred twenty dollars.  
5 
They agreed that respondent would prepare the necessary paperwork and 
6 
telephone Crawford on September 16, 1994 to schedule a time for signing 
7 
the papers.  Respondent did not call on that date and, several days later, 
8 
Crawford attempted unsuccessfully to contact him. Crawford tried again the 
9 
next day, only to learn from a recorded message that respondent could be 
10 
reached at a new number.  Crawford called the new number and left a 
11 
message with the person who answered; respondent did not return the call. 
12 
 
After his repeated attempts to contact respondent failed, Crawford 
13 
sent respondent a message by facsimile.  Still, respondent did not reply.  
14 
Crawford retained another attorney at a cost of one hundred ninety-five 
15 
dollars, and that attorney was able to to file the lien just before the deadline.  
16 
During relator’s investigation, 
17 
respondent promised to refund 
 
3
Crawford’s money by January 25, 1995, but no evidence establishes this 
1 
payment. 
2 
 
With respect to Count II, the evidence established that respondent 
3 
represented Prudential LMI, an insurance carrier, in an action brought by an 
4 
insured against a third party for certain business losses.  During the first day 
5 
of trial, the plaintiff-insured’s attorney asked to assist respondent in 
6 
preparing some experts who would testify in their clients’ cases.  
7 
Respondent accepted his offer, and the attorneys agreed to meet with the 
8 
expert witnesses that evening.  When the plaintiff’s attorney arrived at 
9 
respondent’s hotel room, he suspected that respondent was intoxicated due 
10 
to his slurred speech and unstable gait.  Respondent assured him that he had 
11 
already spoken to the witnesses, but the plaintiff’s attorney later discovered 
12 
that little had been done to prepare them.  During trial the next day, 
13 
respondent insisted on examining the experts himself, but failed to properly 
14 
qualify his first expert or frame appropriate questions.  The trial court 
15 
eventually stopped the proceeding and granted a mistrial on the ground  that 
16 
respondent was impaired and unable 
17 
to adequately represent his client. 
 
4
 
The panel granted the motion for default and found that respondent’s 
1 
conduct violated DR 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay or deliver to the 
2 
client funds the client is entitled to receive), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry 
3 
out a contract of employment), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct 
4 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 6-101(A) (3) (neglecting an 
5 
entrusted legal matter).  In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, 
6 
the panel considered that respondent had been admitted to the practice of 
7 
law in 1956 and had no prior disciplinary infractions.  The panel also 
8 
considered relator’s representations that respondent was not registered as 
9 
“active” in compliance with Gov.Bar R. VI, nor had he complied with 
10 
continuing legal education requirements under Gov.Bar R. X.  The panel 
11 
recommended that the respondent be indefinitely suspended from the 
12 
practice of law. 
13 
 
The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
14 
and recommendation. 
15 
 
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy M. Solochek, 
16 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for 
17 
relator. 
 
5
 
Per Curiam.  We concur in the findings of misconduct and 
1 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent, Robert L. Summers, is hereby 
2 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs taxed to the 
3 
respondent. 
4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
5 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, 
6 
JJ., concur. 
7 
 
WRIGHT, J., not participating. 
8 
 
9 
                                          
 
1 Respondent denied some of the allegations in the original complaint in a 
letter to relator that he did not file with the board.  The letter also advised 
that respondent was without financial means to support himself, and that he 
had recently been jailed, locked out of his home and office, and 
hospitalized.