Case Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Andrews

Citation: 2005-Ohio-2696

Docket Number: 20042080

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Andrews, 105 Ohio St.3d 453, 2005-Ohio-2696.] 
 
 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. ANDREWS. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Andrews,  
105 Ohio St.3d 453, 2005-Ohio-2696.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension, stayed, on condition — 
neglect of entrusted legal matter. 
(No. 2004-2080 — Submitted February 16, 2005 — Decided June 15, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-079. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Charles G. Andrews, of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0037476, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1980.  On June 25, 
1997, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one year for 
committing several Disciplinary Rule violations, including neglecting the cases of 
four bankruptcy clients.  See Dayton Bar Assn. v. Andrews (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 
109, 679 N.E.2d 1093.  Respondent served this suspension and complied with all 
requirements for his reinstatement, including conditions ordered to ensure that 
respondent’s depression was treated.  Respondent was then reinstated on April 18, 
2000, and placed on a one-year monitored probation.  Dayton Bar Assn. v. 
Andrews (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 1238, 727 N.E.2d 917. 
{¶ 2} On October 6, 2003, relator, Dayton Bar Association, charged 
respondent with, among other misconduct, one count of professional neglect.  A 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the 
cause and issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation, all 
of which the board adopted. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent, formerly a private practitioner and now an assistant 
public defender, stipulated to many facts alleged by relator.  In June 2000, a client 
consulted respondent, asking him to help her husband of many years reduce his 
child-support payments.  At the time, over $700 per month was being withheld 
from her husband’s paycheck to pay for arrearages accumulated before his 
children were emancipated.  The husband had recently learned of his forthcoming 
layoff, and the couple feared the consequences of his being unable to continue 
making child-support payments. 
{¶ 4} At the second consultation, respondent learned that the husband 
owed a very large amount for delinquent child-support payments — 
approximately $99,000.  Respondent became concerned that the Franklin County 
Child Support Enforcement Agency (“FCCSEA”) might prosecute if the husband 
was laid off and was unable to make his payments.  Respondent’s clients paid him 
a $3,500 flat fee, for which respondent anticipated that he would try to negotiate a 
compromise with FCCSEA and, if they could not reach an agreement, he would 
defend against what he believed was an inevitable prosecution.  Respondent went 
to Columbus, obtained the husband’s divorce decree, and spoke with an FCCSEA 
investigator.  The investigator assured respondent that as long as payments were 
made, the agency would not resort to aggressive enforcement. 
{¶ 5} Thereafter, respondent calculated the child-support arrearage that 
his client owed.  He discovered that the arrearage was actually far less than the 
FCCSEA had calculated.  Respondent contacted the FCCSEA, and sometime 
later, FCCSEA notified respondent’s clients of a child-support-arrearage 
reassessment and corresponding reduction in the required monthly payment.  
Respondent did not, however, file any formal request to reduce the husband’s 
monthly child-support payments. 
January Term, 2005 
3 
{¶ 6} Respondent took no further action and did not communicate with 
his clients from August 2000 until August 2001.  In the meantime, on September 
5, 2000, respondent began working as an assistant public defender in 
Montgomery County.  The couple later attempted to contact respondent at his old 
office but learned that he no longer worked there.  The clients eventually located 
respondent with relator’s help. 
{¶ 7} The couple met with respondent on February 1, 2002, at which 
time respondent introduced them to another attorney who was experienced in 
matters of child support.  The attorney agreed to assist the couple, and respondent 
offered to pay the new attorney from the fees already paid.  The couple wrote a 
check for $154, apparently for the cost of filing a challenge against the amount set 
for the husband’s monthly child-support payments; however, this check was never 
negotiated. 
{¶ 8} Over the succeeding months, the couple tried to reach respondent 
but lost touch with him again.  By August 2002, the wife had demanded the return 
of the couple’s $3,500 and was threatening to report respondent to relator if he did 
not pay.  Respondent then realized that the second attorney had not undertaken his 
client’s representation, and he agreed to return the $3,500 as soon as he had the 
money. 
{¶ 9} Respondent returned the $3,500 on May 7, 2004.  After his work 
on the couple’s case, the FCCSEA had recalculated the husband’s child-support 
arrearage to be approximately $39,000.  The agency later reduced that amount 
further, to $18,000, and the husband’s monthly child-support payments were 
reduced commensurately. 
{¶ 10} Although the husband’s child-support payments were reduced 
without the necessity of a formal request, respondent conceded that he had not 
promptly filed the request.  He explained that he had waited to file, thinking that 
FCCSEA would be more inclined to reduce the payments when the husband, who 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
had returned to work within months of his layoff, was not working.  Respondent 
claimed that after he became a public defender, he had asked the couple to come 
and see him if the husband was ever laid off again.  The client finally did so, 
according to respondent, on February 1, 2002. 
{¶ 11} Adopting the panel’s report, the board found that notwithstanding 
the other services performed on his clients’ behalf, respondent had violated DR 6-
101(A)(3) (prohibiting the neglect of an entrusted legal matter) by failing to 
attend to his clients’ specific wishes – to pursue a reduction of the child-support 
payments owed each month. 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of respondent’s case.  
See Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedures on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline.  The board noted that respondent has suffered since 1994 from 
depression and anxiety and that in 1995, he went on inactive status, his wife filed 
for divorce, and he lost his son in an auto accident.  Respondent has not, however, 
asserted any mental disorder as mitigating in the present case, and he has a history 
of professional discipline.  Moreover, although respondent eventually repaid his 
client’s retainer, the board found that respondent had not made restitution 
promptly. 
{¶ 13} The board found, however, that respondent had not acted 
dishonestly or in his own interest, had not committed a pattern of misconduct, had 
not engaged in multiple offenses, and had not submitted false evidence.  The 
board also found that respondent had cooperated in the disciplinary process and 
had acknowledged the wrongfulness of his conduct.  Moreover, because the child-
support payments had ultimately been reduced and respondent had returned the 
fee he had been paid, the board found that respondent’s clients had not been 
January Term, 2005 
5 
harmed financially.  The board also considered mitigating respondent’s forthright 
disclosure and deep remorse for his neglect. 
{¶ 14} The board was particularly impressed with respondent’s character 
evidence.  Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Judges Michael T. Hall and 
John W. Kessler, both of whom are well acquainted with respondent’s work as a 
public defender, attested to his integrity and professional competence.  They 
described respondent as an ethical and moral person.  Judge Hall further described 
respondent as an effective and efficient attorney, and Judge Kessler described him 
as an outstanding attorney.  Both judges advocated for respondent’s continued 
practice of law as being in the interest of their court and the administration of 
justice. 
{¶ 15} Brian Weaver, a senior trial attorney in the Montgomery County 
Public Defender’s Office, extolled respondent’s effectiveness in representing 
criminal defendants.  Weaver referred to respondent’s work as invaluable and 
described him as having a reputation for honesty and ethics.  Weaver also 
advocated against any actual suspension of respondent’s license. 
{¶ 16} Adopting the panel’s recommendation, the board recommended 
that respondent be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct.  Neither party objects 
to this sanction. 
{¶ 17} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3).  
The board’s recommendation to publicly reprimand respondent, however, is 
insufficient to ensure that no other clients suffer from his inattention. 
{¶ 18} Respondent is now practicing responsibly in a structured 
environment with supervision.  Moreover, we are impressed with the witnesses’ 
appeals for respondent’s continued service to indigent criminal defendants and 
find this evidence particularly mitigating.  Accord Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore, 
101 Ohio St.3d 261, 2004-Ohio-734, 804 N.E.2d 423.  The combination of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
respondent’s disciplinary record and current neglect, however, requires a sanction 
more exacting than a public reprimand. 
{¶ 19} We find that the public interest is at once protected and served by a 
sanction that permits respondent to practice, but not without our specific 
oversight.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law 
for six months; however, the suspension is stayed on the condition that he commit 
no further misconduct.  The stay will be lifted if respondent violates this 
condition.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and 
O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
LANZINGER, J., dissents and would publicly reprimand respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Gary C. Schaengold, for relator. 
 
Leppla Associates and Gary J. Leppla, for respondent. 
______________________