Case Title: Columbus Bar Association v. King

Citation: 2002-Ohio-1945

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-04-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Association v. King, 95 Ohio St.3d 93, 2002-Ohio-1945.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. KING. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. King (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 93.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with credit for time 
served — Failing to fulfill purpose of mentorship imposed at previous 
disciplinary proceeding — Engaging in conduct indicating inability to 
function as a professional lawyer in a courtroom or afford clients 
adequate representation — Failure to pay costs imposed at previous 
disciplinary proceeding. 
(No. 98-423 — Submitted January 8, 2002 — Decided April 24, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-115. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In December 1998, for conduct in January 1996, we 
suspended Christopher King, now of Dallas, Texas, Attorney Registration No. 
0062199, from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, but stayed the suspension 
on the condition that during that year he be placed on probation and work with a 
mentor appointed by the relator, Columbus Bar Association.  Columbus Bar Assn. 
v. King (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 174, 702 N.E.2d 862.  We also imposed costs of 
that proceeding on respondent. 
 
On February 19, 1999, relator appointed Guy L. Reese II, a former 
Franklin County Municipal Court Judge and a former Franklin County Common 
Pleas Court Judge, to be respondent’s mentor.  Based upon the mentor’s report to 
the relator and respondent’s failure to make the payment ordered in our December 
1998 order, relator requested on September 13, 2000, that respondent’s probation 
be revoked, that his stayed suspension be reinstated, and that respondent be held 
in contempt.  Respondent opposed this request, and the matter was heard by a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court. 
 
At a hearing on June 6, 2001, the panel considered testimony, exhibits, 
and stipulations.  It received evidence that on January 9, 1998, Judge David Cain 
of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas imposed a Civ.R. 11 sanction on 
respondent in the amount of $5,000 to be paid in thirty days for frivolous 
behavior in continuing to pursue an action despite his client’s own 
acknowledgement that she had no claim.  Respondent did not appeal the order or 
pay the sanction.  Instead, he wrote a letter to the judge and filed suit against him.  
The panel received evidence that on September 9, 1998, Judge Edmund A. 
Sargus, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio 
fined respondent $1,500 in attorney fees and $1,311.73 in costs for his conduct in 
Lampley v. Vagnier (1998), No. C2-96-337.  Respondent did not appeal this 
sanction or two others in the same case that totaled $5,139, nor did he pay them, 
except for possibly $300 of the attorney fees.  On February 28, 2000, Judge 
Sargus ordered respondent to appear and show cause why he should not be held 
in contempt for failure to pay the sanctions. 
 
The panel also received evidence that on February 11, 1999, Judge 
Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District Court for the Southern District 
of Ohio held respondent in contempt for the manner in which he comported 
himself in Belcher v. Ohio Dept. Human Serv., (S.D.Ohio 1999), 48 F.Supp.3d 
729, and ordered him to complete a six-week preceptorship with Professor 
Shirley Mays of the Capital University Law School.  Respondent did not at any 
time comply with the requirements of the preceptorship. 
 
The panel received further evidence that on July 7, 1999, Visiting Judge 
John Martin of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court held respondent in 
contempt and granted a mistrial due to respondent’s conduct in Smith v. 
Professional Cellular Serv., Inc., No. 95CVH-12-8949, and ordered him to pay 
January Term, 2002 
3 
attorney fees and court costs.  Respondent instead filed a complaint against Judge 
Martin. 
 
In addition, the panel received evidence that respondent informed his 
monitor, Judge Reese, that additional sanctions had been imposed against him of 
$1,852.50 by Judge David Cain in Oglesby v. Columbus, Franklin C.P. No. 97-
CVC-03-3823, of $2,077.59 by Judge Nodine Miller of the Franklin County 
Common Pleas Court in Hamm v. Gahanna City Council, No. 95CVF085484, of 
$200 by Judge Cain in Michael v. Whitehall, No. 97CVC012333, and of $1,000 
by Judge James L. Graham of the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of Ohio in Archer v. Roman, No. C-2-95-1187. 
 
On the basis of this evidence the panel found that respondent had not 
fulfilled the purpose of his mentorship and that his conduct indicated that he 
could neither function as a professional lawyer in a courtroom nor afford his 
clients adequate representation. 
 
In addition, the panel further found that respondent had not paid the costs 
imposed in our December 1998 order.  The panel recommended that respondent’s 
probation be terminated and that his suspension from the practice of law be 
reinstated. 
 
We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings of the panel.  It is 
clear from the numerous sanctions that respondent received during his term of 
probation for his conduct in several courts, sanctions that remain unpaid, that the 
mentor’s report is credible.  Further, in three years respondent has not paid the 
costs we imposed in December 1998, costs that we ordered paid within ninety 
days. 
 
We have already revoked respondent’s probation and reinstated his 
suspension on October 4, 2001, “pending entry of a final order by this court.”  93 
Ohio St.3d 1438, 755 N.E.2d 901.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law for one year with credit for time served.  Respondent is further 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
ordered to pay the costs of the original proceeding in the amount of $1,363.71 
plus interest of ten percent from March 8, 1999 until paid.  Respondent shall 
further pay the costs of these proceedings. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Julia A. Davis, Bradley N. Frick and Anthony M. Roseboro, for relator. 
 
Christopher King, pro se. 
__________________