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

Citation: 2004-Ohio-4749

Docket Number: 20040468

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-09-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Herron, 103 Ohio St.3d 332, 2004-Ohio-4749.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. HERRON. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Herron, 103 Ohio St.3d 332, 2004-Ohio-
4749.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Conduct adversely reflecting 
on fitness to practice law — Neglect of entrusted legal matters — Lack of 
adequate preparation — Failure to cooperate in disciplinary proceedings 
— Failure to maintain registration and comply with continuing legal 
education requirements. 
(No. 2004-0468 — Submitted April 27, 2004 — Decided September 22, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-49. 
_______________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Michael J. Herron, of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0068694, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997.  
Five separate grievances against respondent were filed with relator, Cuyahoga 
County Bar Association.  Between January and August 2002, relator repeatedly 
attempted to contact respondent about these grievances by phone and letter, both 
by certified and ordinary mail.  All certified mail was returned as unclaimed.  
Respondent admitted receiving the correspondence sent by ordinary mail, but 
nevertheless did not contact relator for approximately eight months.  Eventually, 
in autumn 2002, respondent addressed these grievances in five separate letters.  
He did not, however, answer the initial, first amended, or second amended 
complaints filed by relator, and on April 28, 2003, the second amended complaint 
was served on the Clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Relator consequently moved for default judgment pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(F). 
{¶2} 
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
referred the motion to a board member for consideration.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(F)(2).  The board member granted the motion and made findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and a recommendation.  As to Count VI, which was added in 
the second amended complaint, the board member found that respondent was not 
current in his attorney registration or continuing legal education requirements.  He 
also found that respondent had not maintained his current addresses with the 
Supreme Court of Ohio.  Violations of Gov.Bar R. VI(1) (a lawyer shall file a 
certificate of registration and shall notify the Attorney Registration Section of any 
change of information) and Gov.Bar R. X(3) (a lawyer shall complete and report 
continuing legal education) were accordingly found. 
{¶3} 
As to the five remaining counts, respondent’s lengthy delay in 
responding to relator’s repeated efforts to contact him prompted the conclusion, as 
to each count, that respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (a lawyer shall 
not neglect or refuse to assist in an investigation of misconduct).  This was the 
only violation assessed against respondent as to Count III, with the balance of the 
charges determined to be unproven by clear and convincing evidence. 
Counts I and V 
{¶4} 
Both Counts I and V stem from respondent’s representation of 
clients in bankruptcy proceedings, and, in both instances, respondent conceded 
the alleged misconduct in his responses to relator’s initial letters of inquiry.  
Common to both is respondent’s failure to initiate bankruptcy proceedings for 
over a year, despite his clients’ remittance of a filing fee or retainer.  In each case, 
respondent’s continuing inaction caused dismissal of the case.  In each instance, 
he failed to seek reinstatement of the case. 
January Term, 2004 
3 
{¶5} 
In Count I, respondent eventually refiled the Chapter 7 action, at 
his own expense, two years after being first retained.  This action coincided with 
the client’s grievance against him and the relator’s assignment of that grievance 
for investigation. 
{¶6} 
Count V involves Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings — an area in 
which respondent admitted in his response to relator’s letter of inquiry that he 
knew little.  Fearful of losing her home, his client retained respondent in May 
2000 and tendered a $200 filing fee.  According to the client, respondent then 
advised her to stop paying certain bills — which apparently included her 
mortgage and utilities — and, relying on that counsel, his client did so. 
{¶7} 
For reasons unknown, respondent petitioned the court to pay the 
filing fee in installments.  He filed the case in June 2001 — nearly a year later — 
but never paid the full filing fee, resulting in the action’s dismissal.  By then, his 
client had had gas service to her home disconnected and was so far behind on her 
mortgage payments that a Chapter 7 bankruptcy was her only option.  The client 
retained new counsel to do this. 
{¶8} 
In both counts, violations of DR 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) 
and 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter) were found.  
Additionally, in Count V, a violation of DR 6-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not 
handle a legal matter without adequate preparation) was assessed. 
Counts II and IV 
{¶9} 
The same violations shared by Counts I and V — DR 1-102(A)(6) 
and 6-101(A)(3) – were also found in each of these counts, both of which arose 
from domestic relations disputes.  In Count II, respondent was retained in late 
1998 to represent his client in termination of a marriage.  In his response to 
relator’s letter of inquiry, respondent did not contest his client’s assertion that he 
did nothing for the next three months.  In April 1999, respondent proposed to his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
client the terms of a separation agreement.  The client’s husband would not agree 
to those terms. 
{¶10} For approximately the next 18 months, there was no further action 
in the case.  In his response to relator’s letter of inquiry, respondent attributed this 
to his client’s decision to put the proceedings on hold, and there is nothing of 
record refuting this.  In July 2001, the parties reached an agreement on the final 
dissolution documents.  Respondent never filed the case, despite his client’s 
remittance of the filing fee.  Respondent claimed in his response letter that 
“additional funds” were owed on the client’s account and that he informed his 
client that no action would be taken until this money was paid.  Respondent, 
however, did not identify what the extra money represented, and respondent’s 
claim was not addressed by the client.  In any event, respondent’s refusal to file 
the case required his client to secure other counsel.  Respondent, in his response 
letter, did not deny his client’s assertion that during this delay, the client and her 
children were without financial support from her spouse and that respondent had 
been so advised. 
{¶11} In Count IV, respondent received a retainer to represent a client in 
what ultimately became a divorce proceeding.  Respondent never told his client of 
the trial date, and respondent did not appear at trial.  The case was then dismissed 
at his client’s cost; but, again, respondent failed to notify her. 
{¶12} Respondent then relocated his office without informing his client.  
She later located him and reported that her husband wanted to sign a separation 
agreement.  The client paid an additional filing fee, but respondent failed to act.  
As in Count II, respondent, in his response to relator’s inquiry letter, claimed that 
additional money was owed, but did not state what the money represented.  
Respondent finally filed the case after almost a year and a half, but only after he 
learned that a grievance had been filed against him. 
Sanction 
January Term, 2004 
5 
{¶13} In recommending a sanction for this cumulative misconduct, the 
board member considered the mitigating and aggravating factors contained in 
Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  A 
pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, lack of cooperation in the disciplinary 
process, and harm to vulnerable victims were found to be aggravating factors, and 
respondent’s lack of a prior disciplinary record was found to be mitigating.  The 
board member also noted that there were some good-faith efforts to make 
restitution and to rectify the consequences of his misconduct.  The board member 
cited the respondent’s completion of the bankruptcies in Counts I and III, the 
completion of the divorce in Count IV, and the refund of the filing fee in Count V.  
The board member rejected relator’s proposed sanction of permanent disbarment, 
recommending an indefinite suspension instead.  The board adopted its member’s 
report in full. 
{¶14} We adopt the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommended sanction.  We have previously held that neglect of legal matters 
and the failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation warrant an 
indefinite suspension from the practice of law.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Judge 
(2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 331, 332, 763 N.E.2d 114, quoting Akron Bar Assn. v. 
Snyder (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 211, 212, 718 N.E.2d 1271.  Accordingly, 
respondent is hereby suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
_____________ 
 
Earl Williams Jr. and Rachel May Weiser, for relator. 
_________________