Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Treneff

Citation: 2004-Ohio-6562

Docket Number: 20041375

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-12-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Treneff, 104 Ohio St.3d 336, 2004-Ohio-6562.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. TRENEFF. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Treneff, 104 Ohio St.3d 336, 2004-Ohio-6562.] 
Attorneys at law – Misconduct – Indefinite suspension – Neglecting an entrusted 
legal matter – Damaging a client – Engaging in conduct adversely 
reflecting on fitness to practice law – Failure to cooperate – Failure to 
register. 
(No. 2004-1375 — Submitted September 28, 2004 — Decided December 15, 
2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-009. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Randall Charles Treneff of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0042588, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1989.  
On March 19, 2003, we suspended respondent’s license to practice for one year, 
six months of which we stayed on conditions, for his neglect of clients’ cases, 
failure to carry out contracts for professional employment, dishonesty, and other 
misconduct.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Treneff, 98 Ohio St.3d 348, 2003-Ohio-
1011, 785 N.E.2d 434.  Respondent’s disciplinary record also includes an earlier 
interim suspension of approximately one month for failing to pay child support.  
See Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(1)(b); In re Treneff (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 1416, 729 
N.E.2d 386; and In re Treneff (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 1438, 731 N.E.2d 182. 
{¶ 2} On February 17, 2004, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged 
respondent in a three-count complaint with having violated the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  Respondent was served with the complaint but did 
not answer, and relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline granted the motion, making findings of misconduct and a 
recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The first count of the complaint alleged that respondent had 
committed misconduct in defending a client against a criminal charge.  The 
second count alleged that respondent failed to cooperate in the investigation of 
that client’s grievance.  The third count alleged that respondent failed to register 
as an attorney, pay registration fees, and provide the Attorney Registration 
Section his current office and residence addresses. 
{¶ 4} As to Count I, evidence established that a client retained 
respondent on July 1, 2002, after the client was arrested for driving under the 
influence of alcohol.  The client paid respondent $750.  Respondent obtained a 
continuance of a preliminary hearing until August 15, 2002, and on that day he 
appeared on behalf of his client, entered a not guilty plea, and asked for a motion 
hearing on the issue of probable cause.  Respondent also signed for his client a 
notice rescheduling the cause for October 3, 2002. 
{¶ 5} On October 3, 2002, respondent’s client appeared for the motion 
hearing, but respondent did not.  Thereafter, respondent scheduled a pretrial for 
November 7, 2002, and a plea hearing for November 27, 2002, which he 
rescheduled for December 10 and again for December 19, 2002.  Respondent did 
not notify his client of the December 19 hearing, and neither the client nor, 
apparently, respondent appeared.  The court consequently issued a warrant for the 
client’s arrest. 
{¶ 6} Respondent’s client was arrested on January 10, 2003, and upon 
his release, the client notified respondent’s office of a new court date on March 
12, 2003.  Respondent did not appear on that date, which led to his client 
appearing without counsel and entering a guilty plea. 
January Term, 2004 
3 
{¶ 7} According to the evidence, respondent’s client also telephoned him 
repeatedly between July 2002 and March 2003 to discuss the client’s defense.  
Respondent, however, regularly failed to reply to the client’s messages. 
{¶ 8} From these facts, the board found that respondent had violated DR 
1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted 
legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (requiring a lawyer to seek the client’s lawful 
objectives through reasonable means), 7-101(A)(2) (requiring a lawyer to carry 
out a contract for professional employment), and 7-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from intentionally causing a client prejudice or damage). 
{¶ 9} As to Count II, evidence established that relator sent a certified 
letter of inquiry to respondent’s office address on April 4, 2003, but although an 
employee signed the return receipt, respondent did not reply.  On July 14, 2003, 
relator hand-delivered a letter of inquiry to respondent, but again he did not reply.  
On August 7, 2003, relator personally served respondent with a subpoena, 
commanding his appearance at a deposition to be held on September 16, 2003.  
Respondent did not appear. 
{¶ 10} From these facts, the board found that respondent had violated 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to assist in an investigation of 
misconduct). 
{¶ 11} As to Count III, the evidence established that about the time of our 
March 19, 2003 suspension of his license, respondent closed his law practice, 
moved to a new residence, and took a job in another field.  He did not, however, 
notify the Attorney Registration Section of these changes.  In addition, respondent 
was required as of September 1, 2003, to file a certificate of registration and pay 
the registration fee.  He did not comply with either of these requirements. 
{¶ 12} From these facts, the board found that respondent had violated 
Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A) (requiring a lawyer to timely file a Certificate of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Registration each biennium) and Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(D) (requiring a lawyer to 
provide his or her current residence and office address to the Attorney 
Registration Section). 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  As 
aggravating features of respondent’s case, the board found that respondent had a 
history of discipline, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), that along with the brief 
suspension imposed for his default on child support, involved much of the same 
misconduct as he committed in this case.  The board further found, based on 
documents submitted in support of the motion for default, that respondent had 
committed a pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses, had failed to cooperate 
in the disciplinary process and had not made restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), and (i). 
{¶ 14} The board could conceive of only one mitigating factor – 
respondent’s testimony in the previous disciplinary action that he was depressed 
due to marital difficulties and had begun to abuse alcohol during that period.  
Because of this testimony, we ordered respondent, as a condition of the six-month 
stay, to submit to an evaluation by the Ohio Lawyers’ Assistance Program and to 
comply with any recommended treatment plan.  98 Ohio St.3d 348, 2003-Ohio-
1011, 785 N.E.2d 434, ¶ 12.  The board noted, however, that it could not consider 
respondent’s current mental health, substance abuse, and treatment status, because 
no evidence substantiated that respondent had complied with our order. 
{¶ 15} Accepting the sanction suggested by relator and recommended by 
the master commissioner, the board recommended that respondent’s license to 
practice law be indefinitely suspended for his misconduct. 
January Term, 2004 
5 
{¶ 16} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 
7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), 
VI(1)(A), and VI(1)(D) as found by the board.  We also agree that an indefinite 
suspension is appropriate.  As we have consistently held, 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; Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder 
(1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 211, 212, 718 N.E.2d 1271. 
{¶ 17} Respondent is therefore indefinitely suspended 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. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
_______________________