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

Citation: 1998-Ohio-317

Docket Number: 19981301

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-12-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. CLOWER. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Clower (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 151.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Failure to adequately 
prepare case — Neglecting legal matters — Violation of Disciplinary Rules 
— Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration 
of justice — Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice 
law — Failing to respond to or cooperate with disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 98-1301 — Submitted August 19, 1998 — Decided December 2, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-25. 
 
On April 14, 1997, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a 
complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”), charging respondent, James K. Clower of Mansfield, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0020325, with eleven violations of the 
Disciplinary Rules and one violation of the Rules for the Government of the Bar.  
Respondent is not currently registered with the Office of Attorney Registration of 
the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Respondent failed to answer the complaint, and, on 
motion of relator, a panel of the board entered a default judgment against 
respondent. 
 
On or about August 29, 1991, Robert Mears, Sr. retained respondent to 
represent Mears in a dispute with Mears’s former employer over a noncompetition 
agreement and commissions allegedly due Mears.  Respondent, however, failed to 
discuss the case with Mears until November 14, 1992, despite having received a 
retainer of $2,500 from Mears.  The next day, Mears wrote to respondent 
expressing his dissatisfaction that, after fifteen months, respondent had not yet 
filed a complaint.  On February 1, 1993, Mears wrote to respondent demanding a 
 
2
copy of the attorney-engagement letter and a copy of the complaint respondent had 
filed against Mears’s former employer.  Respondent sent a copy of the complaint 
he had purportedly filed to Mears on February 22, 1993; respondent, however, did 
not file the complaint until June 22, 1994. 
 
In the meantime, Mears’s former employer sued Mears in Pike Township, 
Indiana.  On June 6, 1994, Mears advised respondent in writing that the Indiana 
court had scheduled a hearing for this lawsuit on June 23, 1994.  Nevertheless, 
respondent failed to appear in court on this date, and Mears’s former employer 
obtained a default judgment.  On July 5, 1994, Mears sent a copy of the judgment 
entry to respondent.  Apparently, respondent did not reply to this letter. 
 
On January 3, 1995, Mears demanded in writing that respondent return 
Mears’s entire file.  Since respondent did not answer this letter, Mears sent a 
second letter on February 20, 1995, and a third letter on March 5, 1995.  On May 
5, 1995, respondent, finally, forwarded Mears’s file to another attorney selected by 
Mears; however, the file was in complete disarray. 
 
Relator, in this count, charged respondent with three violations of DR 6-
101(A)(3) (neglecting legal matters), one violation of 6-101(A)(2) (failure to 
adequately prepare case), one violation of 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), one violation of 1-
102(A)(1) (violation of the Disciplinary Rules), one violation of 1-102(A)(5) 
(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and one violation 
of 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law). 
 
Under count two, investigators for relator report that respondent completely 
failed to cooperate with the investigation.  Furthermore, respondent has failed to 
respond to the disciplinary complaint.  Under this count, relator charges respondent 
 
3
with a violation of Gov.Bar R. V (failure to respond or cooperate with 
investigation). 
 
In count three, Beverlee Hileman, in 1993, retained respondent to represent 
her in a domestic relations matter.  Hileman discharged respondent when he did 
not return her telephone calls.  Respondent, however, billed Hileman for services 
not actually performed, for which act relator charges respondent with misconduct 
under count four.  Hileman complained to relator’s Lawyer-Client Relations 
Committee, but respondent failed to cooperate with efforts to resolve the fee 
dispute.  Under counts three and four, relator charges respondent with one 
violation of DR 6-101(A)(3), one violation of 6-101(A)(2), and one violation of 1-
102(A)(4). 
 
The panel found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(2) and (3), 1-
102(A)(1), (4), (5), and (6), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  The panel recommended 
that we permanently disbar respondent from the practice of law.  The board 
adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. 
__________________ 
 
John D. Sutula, Thomas E. Kocovsky, Jr. and Ellen S. Mandell, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. We have reviewed the record in this matter, and we observe 
that we publicly reprimanded respondent in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Clower (1989), 
41 Ohio St.3d 601, 533 N.E.2d 1058.  We also note respondent’s complete failure 
to cooperate with this investigation and to rectify his clients’ complaints.  
Accordingly, we permanently disbar respondent from the practice of law and tax 
costs to him. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.