Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace

Citation: 2000-Ohio-120

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace, 89 Ohio St.3d 113, 2000-Ohio-120.] 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WALLACE. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wallace (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 113.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension — Engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. 
(No. 99-1866 — Submitted January 12, 2000 — Decided May 31, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-51. 
 
In July 1992, Crestline Building & Loan Association, the mortgage holder, 
purchased a residence owned by James Benedict at a foreclosure sale.  In 
November 1993, Benedict retained respondent, Paul Wallace of Columbus, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0010369, to recover title to his home from the 
Resolution Trust Corporation (“RTC”), which had taken control of Crestline in 
November 1992. 
 
In December 1993, respondent filed an action to recover the property in the 
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Crestline, the 
RTC, and two real estate companies charged with managing the property on behalf 
of the RTC.  On December 28, 1993, the defendants moved to dismiss the 
complaint for insufficient service of process, failure to state a claim upon which 
relief can be granted, and failure to join parties under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 19.  
Respondent did not respond to the motion, and in February 1994, the court 
 
 
2
dismissed the complaint.  Respondent did not inform Benedict that the case had 
been dismissed and did not file an appeal. 
 
After the dismissal, respondent continued to take actions that led Benedict to 
believe that the case was still pending, including billing Benedict in April 1994 for 
a “Review of RTC Motions” performed on March 1, 1994, and renewing that 
billing in May and June 1994.  In July and August 1994, respondent sent letters to 
Benedict indicating that he intended to “push forward with the litigation” and get 
the matter set for hearing as soon as possible and that the case was the “most 
important matter in this office at this time.” 
 
Also in August 1994, respondent wrote to Benedict stating that he would file 
an amended complaint in an attempt to add another plaintiff to the lawsuit.  In 
October 1994, he wrote to Benedict stating that he was awaiting a decision on a 
jurisdictional motion raised by the defendants. 
 
In February 1995, respondent wrote to Benedict suggesting that he consider 
filing a state court lawsuit to address the same issues.  In that same month, 
Benedict called the Clerk of the United States District Court and was informed that 
the case had been dismissed a year earlier.  Due to the statute of limitations, it was 
then too late for Benedict to refile his case. 
 
In August 1998, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent’s conduct violated several Disciplinary Rules.  
 
 
3
Respondent answered, and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”).  The panel found that 
respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects upon the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). After 
noting in mitigation that respondent returned Benedict’s retainer and receiving 
character testimony from several attorneys, the panel recommended that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months and that the entire 
six months be stayed.  The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel 
and recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six 
months. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Michael T. Gunner, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent’s repeated attempts to mislead his client constitute a 
course of conduct in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), which warrants an actual 
suspension from the practice of law.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 
 
 
4
74 Ohio St.3d 187, 191, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240.  Respondent is hereby suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio for six months.  Cost are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.