Case Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. King

Citation: 2006-Ohio-1932

Docket Number: 20051947

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. King, 109 Ohio St.3d 95, 2006-Ohio-1932.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. KING. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. King,  
109 Ohio St.3d 95, 2006-Ohio-1932.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or 
misrepresentation — Failure to carry out a contract for professional 
employment — Failure to promptly pay client funds held by the attorney to 
the client — Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2005-1947—Submitted December 14, 2005—Decided May 3, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-041. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michael Leonard King of Independence, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0031364, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1984.  On 
August 17, 2005, we indefinitely suspended respondent’s license to practice law 
for violations of DR 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that adversely reflects on a 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
neglecting a legal matter), and 9-102(B)(3) (requiring a lawyer to maintain 
complete records of and appropriately account for client funds), as well as 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring attorneys to cooperate with and assist in any 
disciplinary investigation) and VI(1)(D) (requiring attorneys to keep the court’s 
attorney-registration section apprised of any address changes).  Cuyahoga Cty. 
Bar Assn. v. King, 106 Ohio St.3d 102, 2005-Ohio-3955, 832 N.E.2d 45. 
{¶ 2} On April 18, 2005, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, 
filed a complaint charging respondent with additional misconduct.  When service 
of the complaint on respondent by certified mail could not be completed, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
complaint was served on the Clerk of the Supreme Court as respondent’s agent 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Respondent did not answer, and relator filed a 
motion for default under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master commissioner appointed 
by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline granted the motion 
and made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation, all of 
which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} In June 2002, Daniel Green retained respondent to represent him 
and paid $250 to respondent as a partial retainer for legal services.  Green later 
paid an additional $100 to respondent as the balance of the retainer.  After his 
initial meeting with respondent in June 2002, Green tried repeatedly to contact 
respondent by telephone, mail, e-mail, and in person.  Respondent did not reply, 
never did any legal work for Green, and never returned the $350 that Green had 
paid. 
{¶ 4} Respondent did not reply to the grievance filed by Green with 
relator and did not answer relator’s complaint. 
{¶ 5} The board found that respondent had violated the following 
Disciplinary Rules: DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1) 
(barring an attorney from intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of a 
client), 7-101(A)(2) (barring a lawyer from intentionally failing to carry out a 
contract of employment), and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring prompt payment of the 
client’s funds or other property in the lawyer’s possession that the client is 
entitled to receive), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Sanction 
{¶ 6} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
January Term, 2006 
3 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  As 
aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had displayed a lack of 
cooperation in the disciplinary process and had failed to make restitution for his 
misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e) and (i). 
{¶ 7} The one mitigating factor cited by the board was respondent’s 
diagnosed depression disorder.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).  The board gave 
that factor diminished weight, however, because – as we noted in respondent’s 
other recent disciplinary case – respondent did not follow through with the 
treatment contract that he signed with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program.  
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. King, 106 Ohio St.3d 102, 2005-Ohio-3955, 832 
N.E.2d 45, ¶ 18. 
{¶ 8} Relator recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred, 
but the master commissioner and the board recommended that respondent’s 
license to practice law be indefinitely suspended, with the suspension to run 
concurrently with the indefinite suspension that we imposed on August 17, 2005. 
{¶ 9} We have reviewed the board’s report and the evidence in the 
record, and we hold that respondent violated all of the provisions cited in the 
report.  We also agree with the board that an indefinite suspension is warranted, 
although we conclude that it should run consecutively to the respondent’s earlier 
indefinite suspension because of the serious nature of respondent’s misconduct 
and because he failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process. 
{¶ 10} Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio, and the suspension in this case will run consecutively to 
the suspension imposed on August 17, 2005.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., 
concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., would impose an indefinite 
suspension to run concurrently with the indefinite suspension imposed on August 
17, 2005. 
__________________ 
 
Ellen S. Mandell, Bar Counsel; McDonald Hopkins Co., L.P.A., and 
Steven L. Gardner; and Blaise Giusto, for relator. 
______________________