Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Gosling

Citation: 1997-Ohio-177

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-06-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Gosling. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Gosling (1997), ____Ohio St.3d ____.] 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Two-year suspension with one 
year stayed on conditions -- Engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation -- Engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law -- 
Neglect of an entrusted legal matter -- Failure to assist in 
disciplinary investigation -- Failure to carry out contract of 
employment. 
 
(No. 97-438 -- Submitted April 16, 1997 -- Decided June 25, 1997.) 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-33. 
 
On April 15, 1996, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, charged 
respondent, John Gregory Gosling of McArthur, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0031040, with violations of  five Disciplinary Rules and 
two Rules for the Government of the Bar. Respondent failed to answer the 
complaint, and the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board’) to rule on relator’s motion for a default judgment. 
 
2
 
Based on exhibits attached to the motion and a deposition of 
respondent, the panel found that in November 1994, Lyssa Noonan retained 
respondent to represent her in a domestic relations case.  Respondent 
initially met with Noonan for two hours and received a retainer of $800 
from her.  In April 1995, after respondent failed to return any telephone 
calls from Noonan or otherwise communicate with her, she terminated his 
services and represented herself at the dissolution hearing.  When Noonan 
finally received respondent’s itemized bill for services, she found that he 
had billed her for an initial meeting of four hours.  Respondent refused to 
refund Noonan’s retainer and failed to cooperate in relator’s attempts to 
investigate this matter. 
 
The panel also found that in July or August 1994, Ohio Valley Bank 
Company hired respondent to perform a real estate title search.  Respondent, 
who had been fully paid by the bank, provided a certificate of title 
examination, but failed to provide the final title letter requested by the bank. 
 
Finally, the panel found that respondent was late in paying his 
attorney registration fees for the 1985-1987, 1989-1991, 1993-1995, and 
 
3
1995-1997 biennia, and engaged in the practice of law when he was not 
registered with the Clerk of the Ohio Supreme Court. 
 
The panel concluded that in representing Noonan, respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4)(G) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6)(engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law), and 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of 
an entrusted legal matter), and that his failure to cooperate with the 
investigation violated Gov.Bar R. V(4) (failure to assist in a disciplinary 
investigation).  With respect to his representation of the Ohio Valley Bank 
Company, the panel concluded that respondent violated  DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-
101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2)(failure to carry out a contract of employment).  
The panel also concluded that respondent’s failure to register timely 
violated Gov.Bar R. VI (1)(failure to register).  The panel noted as a 
mitigating factor that respondent admitted to having had past difficulties 
with alcohol.  
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for twenty-four months with twelve of those months stayed, 
providing that respondent makes restitution to Noonan in the amount of 
 
4
$800, provides the bank with the final title letter, regularly attends alcohol 
counseling and Alcoholics Anonymous sessions, and enrolls in and 
completes the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program.  The panel recommended 
that if respondent fails to comply with any of the conditions of probation, 
then his probation shall cease and the suspension shall become effective for 
the entire remaining term. 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations 
of the panel, except that the board found no violation of Gov.Bar R. VI(1). 
__________________________________ 
 
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations of the board.  Respondent is suspended from the practice 
of law for twenty-four months, but twelve months of that suspension are 
stayed, provided that during the two-year period respondent comply with 
the conditions recommended by the board.  Costs are taxed to the 
respondent. 
 
5
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK 
and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.