Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. King

Citation: 1996-Ohio-238

Docket Number: 19950378

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

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

Document:
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. King. 
1 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. King (1996), ____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 
2 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Six-month suspension -- 
3 
Deliberately false statements to a client -- Neglect of an 
4 
entrusted legal matter -- Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
5 
deceit, or misrepresentation -- Prior offenses considered as a 
6 
factor that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline 
7 
for subsequent misconduct. 
8 
 
(No. 95-378--Submitted October 24, 1995--Decided February 28, 
9 
1996.) 
10 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
11 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 93-59. 
12 
 
In a single-count complaint filed on October 18, 1993, relator, Office 
13 
of Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent, James C. King of Lima, Ohio, 
14 
Attorney Registration No. 0000774, with violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) 
15 
(neglect of an entrusted legal matter) and 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving 
16 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).   In his answer, respondent 
17 
admitted some facts alleged in the complaint and added explanations. 
18 
 
On May 11, 1994, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
19 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) held a hearing on 
20 
 
2
the matter.  The complaint, answer, stipulations, and evidence established 
1 
that respondent was admitted to the Ohio Bar in 1967 and practices in Lima.  
2 
In September 1989, respondent filed a civil complaint relating to wage 
3 
deductions on behalf of his client, Carl E. Lawrence, against Duff Truck 
4 
Lines, Inc. (“Duff”).  Before that case was resolved, we suspended 
5 
respondent from the practice of law for one year because of a felony 
6 
conviction for filing a false federal income tax return.  Allen Cty. Bar Assn. 
7 
v. King (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 8, 548 N.E.2d 238.  Respondent and 
8 
Lawrence agreed that another attorney would dismiss Lawrence’s case.  
9 
Later, respondent agreed he would refile the complaint for Lawrence when 
10 
he was reinstated to practice. 
11 
 
In February 1991, we reinstated King to the practice of law.  Allen 
12 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. King (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 601, 567 N.E.2d 985.  Shortly 
13 
thereafter, Lawrence contacted respondent, and respondent assured 
14 
Lawrence that his case would be refiled.  Twice in 1991, Lawrence called 
15 
respondent and reminded him to refile the case, and respondent assured 
16 
Lawrence he would do so.  In January, April and July 1992, Lawrence again 
17 
called respondent, and respondent assured Lawrence each time that the case 
18 
 
3
had been refiled.  In July 1992, Lawrence learned that respondent had not 
1 
refiled the Duff complaint.  In fact, respondent never did so.  In August 
2 
1992, Lawrence fired respondent and picked up the case file. 
3 
 
Subsequently, Lawrence secured other counsel who filed his case 
4 
against Duff, and Lawrence secured a default judgment for $20,245.97, plus 
5 
attorney fees.  Lawrence also sued respondent for malpractice, but 
6 
respondent and Lawrence settled that case when respondent paid Lawrence 
7 
$12, 673.37 (the amount of the wages withheld by Duff). 
8 
 
At the hearing, respondent testified and admitted he had neglected a 
9 
legal matter entrusted to him and that he had falsely represented to 
10 
Lawrence that the Duff case had been refiled.  He explained the extensive 
11 
pressures on him surrounding his earlier conviction and suspension from 
12 
practice.  He had an extensive, busy practice, with emphasis on domestic 
13 
relations, and wanted to continue to practice law.  David Cheney, one of his 
14 
peers and long-time friends, testified that respondent was regarded as 
15 
“honest” and a “fighter,” and acknowledged that respondent “zealously 
16 
protect[s] his client’s rights.”  Respondent’s  wife testified he was an 
17 
excellent husband and father but tends to be a workaholic.  During the year 
18 
 
4
he was suspended, respondent was involved extensively in community 
1 
service. 
2 
 
The panel concluded that respondent neglected a legal matter in 
3 
violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, 
4 
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).  The 
5 
panel also noted that respondent’s prior suspension was due to conduct 
6 
unrelated to the practice of law.  Further, respondent had settled Lawrence’s 
7 
claim against him, that Lawrence still had a default judgment against Duff, 
8 
and thus apparently has been made whole.  Further, respondent was 
9 
genuinely contrite. 
10 
 
At the hearing in May 1994, relator recommended that respondent be 
11 
suspended from the practice of law for six months.  The panel recommended 
12 
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years, but that 
13 
this suspension be stayed, subject to the completion of a two-year 
14 
probationary period monitored by the Allen County Bar Association.  The 
15 
board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
16 
recommendation. 
17 
____________________________________ 
18 
 
5
 
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, Lori J. Brown and Alvin E. 
1 
Mathews, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
2 
 
Sabol & Fisher and John A. Sabol, for respondent. 
3 
____________________________________ 
4 
 
Per Curiam.  We concur with the board’s findings that respondent 
5 
violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(4).  However, in view of 
6 
respondent’s deliberately false statements to his client, we find it 
7 
appropriate to suspend respondent from the practice of law for a specific 
8 
period.  “Dishonesty toward a client, whose interests are the attorney’s duty 
9 
to protect, is reprehensible.”  Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Speros (1995), 73 Ohio 
10 
St.3d 101, 104, 652  N.E.2d 681, 683.  Additionally, respondent’s prior 
11 
disciplinary record reinforces our decision to impose an actual suspension.  
12 
“Prior disciplinary offenses shall be considered as a  factor that may justify 
13 
an increase in the degree of discipline *** for subsequent misconduct.” 
14 
Gov.Bar R. V(6)(C). 
15 
 
Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice of law in 
16 
Ohio for six months.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
18 
 
6
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and 
1 
COOK, JJ., concur. 
2 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents and would adopt the recommendations of the 
3 
panel and the board of a two-year suspension, stayed, with probation. 
4 
 
5 
 
6