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

Citation: 2007-Ohio-4270

Docket Number: 20070768

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Smith, 115 Ohio St.3d 95, 2007-Ohio-4270.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SMITH. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Smith, 
 115 Ohio St.3d 95, 2007-Ohio-4270.] 
Attorney misconduct — Multiple violations involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation — Multiple violations involving neglect of entrusted 
legal matters — Disbarment. 
(No. 2007-0768 — Submitted June 6, 2007 — Decided August 29, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-028. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Richard Ford Smith Jr. of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0018125, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1985.  For the reasons 
explained below, we conclude that respondent should be permanently disbarred 
from the practice of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 2} In 1999, we publicly reprimanded respondent for violating DR 6-
101(A)(3) (barring a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter) and 7-
101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to carry out a contract 
of professional employment).  Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Smith (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 
402, 709 N.E.2d 116. 
{¶ 3} On November 16, 2006, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar 
Association, filed an amended complaint charging respondent with 11 counts of 
professional misconduct.  Respondent was served with a copy of the complaint 
but did not answer, and relator moved for default under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A 
master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline granted the motion, making findings of fact and conclusions of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
law, which the board adopted, as well as a recommendation, which the board 
rejected. 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 4} Carrie L. Davis paid respondent a $450 retainer and $209 for court 
costs in connection with a Chapter 7 bankruptcy matter.  Respondent then 
prepared and filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition for Davis in November 2004. 
{¶ 5} While representing Davis, respondent incorrectly advised her that 
she could spend her state and federal income tax refunds rather than turning those 
funds over to the bankruptcy trustee.  Davis relied on respondent’s advice and 
used the refunds to pay personal obligations. 
{¶ 6} When a hearing was scheduled in the bankruptcy court on the 
trustee’s request that Davis be ordered to turn over the nonexempt portion of her 
tax refunds, respondent told Davis that he would attend the hearing on her behalf.  
After the May 2005 hearing date, Davis called respondent several times and left 
messages for him at his office, his home, and on his cell-phone voice mail.  
Respondent did not return the calls. 
{¶ 7} In June 2005, respondent signed an agreed order for Davis to turn 
over $1,772 – the nonexempt portion of her tax refunds – to the bankruptcy 
trustee within 30 days, but respondent never told Davis about the order.  Only 
after Davis received a summons and complaint filed by the bankruptcy trustee in 
August 2005 did she learn that respondent had signed an agreed order directing 
her to pay $1,772 to the trustee.  Davis tried to reach respondent to find out what 
was happening with her bankruptcy case, but respondent failed to return any of 
her calls from May 2005 until October 19, 2005. 
{¶ 8} Approximately one hour before Davis was to appear in the 
bankruptcy court on October 19, 2005, respondent called her and acknowledged 
that he had neglected her case.  He told Davis that he would personally pay $100 
January Term, 2007 
3 
per month to the bankruptcy trustee to resolve the tax-refund issue, and he assured 
her that she did not need to attend the hearing that day. 
{¶ 9} Because she had lost confidence in respondent, Davis did attend 
the hearing.  She waited outside the courtroom and was eventually told again by 
respondent that he would pay the tax-refund obligation to the bankruptcy trustee 
from his own funds in $100 monthly installments.  On October 20, 2005, the 
trustee sent respondent an agreed entry memorializing the promised payments, but 
respondent failed to sign the document and then told Davis that he had never 
received any papers to sign.  After she learned that respondent had failed to sign 
the agreed entry and had misrepresented to her that he had not received it, Davis 
discharged respondent and signed the document herself. 
{¶ 10} We agree with the board’s finding that these actions by respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration 
of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s 
fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from handling a legal 
matter without adequate preparation), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally prejudicing or damaging a client), as well 
as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring attorneys to cooperate with and assist in any 
disciplinary investigation). 
Count Two 
{¶ 11} In August 2002, respondent agreed to represent James Wilson in a 
bankruptcy matter.  Wilson agreed to pay respondent $657 for attorney fees and 
court costs associated with the filing of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. 
{¶ 12} During calendar years 2002 through 2005, respondent failed to file 
the bankruptcy petition or take any other action on Wilson’s behalf.  In October 
2005, Wilson made an additional payment to respondent, bringing the total 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
amount paid to $825.  Although respondent told Wilson that he would file the 
bankruptcy petition before changes to the bankruptcy laws took effect on October 
17, 2005, respondent failed to file the petition or take any other action on 
Wilson’s behalf in 2005. 
{¶ 13} Respondent finally filed Wilson’s bankruptcy petition in February 
2006.  Because respondent had failed to include some paperwork that must be 
filed with any bankruptcy petition filed after the October 17, 2005 change in the 
bankruptcy laws, Wilson’s bankruptcy case was dismissed.  Respondent did not 
return Wilson’s phone calls inquiring about the dismissal, and he never replied to 
Wilson’s or relator’s requests for an accounting of the work performed on 
Wilson’s case.  Respondent also did not respond to relator’s other requests for 
information about his representation of Wilson. 
{¶ 14} Respondent failed to verify for relator that he had maintained the 
requisite professional-liability insurance during his representation of Wilson, and 
respondent never told Wilson that he lacked that insurance. 
{¶ 15} We agree with the board’s finding that these actions by respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A) (requiring an 
attorney to disclose to clients that he does not carry professional-liability 
insurance), 6-101(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(3) 
(requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records of all funds of a client and to 
render appropriate accounts), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count Three 
{¶ 16} In August 2005, respondent agreed to represent Delilah Rogers on 
a bankruptcy matter, and he filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on her behalf.  
Several days after the filing, respondent was notified by the bankruptcy court that 
the petition was defective because Rogers had not signed part of it.  Respondent 
failed to notify Rogers about the deficiency or take any action to correct it, and he 
January Term, 2007 
5 
failed to appear at a creditors’ meeting for her.  Respondent also failed to appear 
at a show-cause hearing and failed to pay the necessary filing fee for the case. 
{¶ 17} Rogers was unaware of court dates for the case, and she received 
no communication from respondent about them.  The bankruptcy court dismissed 
the case, and respondent failed to notify Rogers or take any action to protect 
Rogers’s interests.  Respondent did not reply to relator’s inquiries about Rogers’s 
grievance against him, and he did not provide evidence that he had maintained 
professional-liability insurance while representing her or that he had notified her 
of his lack of insurance. 
{¶ 18} We agree with the board’s finding that these actions by respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A), 6-101(A)(2), 6-
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count Four 
{¶ 19} In July 2003, respondent agreed to represent Pamela Davis in a 
bankruptcy matter, and he filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on her behalf.  
The bankruptcy court approved a payment plan for her, and Davis made timely 
payments.  Her bankruptcy case was dismissed, however, because her payments 
were mistakenly applied to her husband’s Chapter 13 case. 
{¶ 20} Davis contacted respondent about the problem, and he agreed to 
appeal the dismissal.  Respondent failed, however, to file an appeal or take any 
other action on Davis’s behalf.  He also failed to return Davis’s phone calls, 
prompting Davis to retain another attorney to do the work that respondent failed 
to complete for her. 
{¶ 21} Also, respondent failed to obtain a signed acknowledgement from 
Davis indicating that she was aware that respondent lacked professional-liability 
insurance.  Respondent did not reply to relator’s inquiries about Davis’s grievance 
against him. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 22} We agree with the board’s finding that these actions by respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A), 6-101(A)(2), 6-
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count Five 
{¶ 23} In November 2004, respondent agreed to represent Robert 
Lindeman in a bankruptcy matter, and Lindeman paid respondent’s $620 fee in 
April 2005.  Respondent told Lindeman in September 2005 that a bankruptcy 
petition had been filed, and respondent assured Lindeman in November 2005 and 
February 2006 that a hearing would be held soon.  Lindeman later learned that 
respondent had never filed the bankruptcy petition. 
{¶ 24} Also, respondent did not obtain a signed acknowledgement from 
Lindeman indicating that he was aware that respondent lacked professional-
liability insurance.  Respondent did not reply to relator’s inquiries about 
Lindeman’s grievance against him. 
{¶ 25} We agree with the board’s finding that these actions by respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A), 6-101(A)(2), 6-
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(3), as well as Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G). 
Count Six 
{¶ 26} In August 2005, Ruby Watson met with respondent and paid him 
$504 to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition for her.  Respondent never filed the 
bankruptcy petition and never returned Watson’s phone calls about the case. 
{¶ 27} Also, respondent did not obtain a signed acknowledgement from 
Watson indicating that she was aware that he lacked professional-liability 
insurance.  Respondent did not reply to relator’s inquiries about Watson’s 
grievance against him. 
{¶ 28} We agree with the board’s finding that these actions by respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A), 6-101(A)(2), 6-
January Term, 2007 
7 
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(3), as well as Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G). 
Count Seven 
{¶ 29} Respondent agreed to represent Denise Lamberson in a bankruptcy 
action that was filed in October 2005.  That action was dismissed for nonpayment 
of the filing fee, even though Lamberson had advanced the filing fee to 
respondent. 
{¶ 30} In May 2006, Lamberson and respondent appeared at a court 
hearing at which the bankruptcy trustee asked for additional documents.  
Although Lamberson later gave the requested documents to respondent, he failed 
to give them to the trustee.  The trustee then filed a motion to dismiss the case, 
and a hearing on the motion was scheduled.  Respondent failed to appear at that 
hearing in July 2006. 
{¶ 31} After the hearing, respondent did not return Lamberson’s calls for 
nearly one month.  Respondent then promised to refund Lamberson’s retainer, but 
she never received a refund from him.  In addition, respondent advised 
Lamberson to keep a $3,000 federal tax refund that she received, but she later 
learned that her bankruptcy case could not be discharged until she paid the $3,000 
to the bankruptcy trustee. 
{¶ 32} Also, respondent did not obtain a signed acknowledgement from 
Lamberson indicating that she was aware that he lacked professional-liability 
insurance.  Respondent did not reply to relator’s inquiries about Lamberson’s 
grievance against him. 
{¶ 33} We agree with the board’s finding that these actions by respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A), 6-101(A)(2), 6-
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(3), as well as Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G). 
Count Eight 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
{¶ 34} In September 2005, Kenyetta Swanson asked respondent to file a 
bankruptcy petition on her behalf.  The following month, Swanson paid 
respondent $209 for the filing fee and $450 for respondent’s attorney fee, and she 
later paid an additional $200.  After October 15, 2005, respondent failed to return 
any of Swanson’s calls, and respondent never filed a bankruptcy petition for her. 
{¶ 35} Also, respondent did not obtain a signed acknowledgement from 
Swanson indicating that she was aware that he lacked professional-liability 
insurance.  Respondent did not reply to relator’s inquiries about Swanson’s 
grievance against him. 
{¶ 36} We agree with the board’s finding that these actions by respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A), 6-101(A)(2), 6-
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(3), as well as Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G). 
Count Nine 
{¶ 37} In March 2005, Tenesha Matthews asked respondent to file a 
bankruptcy petition on her behalf, and she paid respondent $659 for court costs 
and his attorney fee.  Respondent failed to file the petition, although he assured 
Matthews that he had done so. 
{¶ 38} Also, respondent did not obtain a signed acknowledgment from 
Matthews indicating that she was aware that he lacked professional-liability 
insurance.  Respondent did not reply to relator’s inquiries about Matthews’s 
grievance against him. 
{¶ 39} We agree with the board’s finding that these actions by respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A), 6-101(A)(2), 6-
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(3), as well as Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G). 
Count Ten 
January Term, 2007 
9 
{¶ 40} In July 2005, Miguel Smith asked respondent to file a bankruptcy 
petition on his behalf, and Smith paid $600 for respondent’s services and the 
filing fee.  Respondent failed to file the bankruptcy petition until September 2006, 
and it was dismissed the following month because respondent had not paid the 
filing fee.  A show-cause hearing was scheduled in the case for October 5, 2006, 
but respondent failed to appear at the hearing. 
{¶ 41} Also, respondent did not obtain a signed acknowledgment from 
Smith indicating that he was aware that respondent lacked professional-liability 
insurance.  Respondent did not reply to relator’s inquiries about Smith’s grievance 
against him. 
{¶ 42} We agree with the board’s finding that these actions by respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A), 6-101(A)(2), 6-
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count Eleven 
{¶ 43} In March 2005, Luanna Lette asked respondent to file a bankruptcy 
petition on her behalf, and she paid $759 for respondent’s attorney fee and court 
costs.  Although respondent filed the bankruptcy petition, he failed to pay the 
filing fee and failed to appear at a court hearing.  Respondent told Lette that she 
need not appear at that hearing, and he later told her that he had resolved the issue 
that the hearing had addressed.  As a result of respondent’s failure to appear and 
his failure to oppose a creditor’s motion, however, Lette’s car was repossessed. 
{¶ 44} The bankruptcy court issued an order discharging Lette from 
bankruptcy in November 2005.  Several months later, the bankruptcy trustee filed 
a motion to revoke the discharge order.  Respondent failed to object, and Lette’s 
case was dismissed as a result of respondent’s failure to appear at a court hearing. 
{¶ 45} Also, respondent did not obtain a signed acknowledgement from 
Lette indicating that she was aware that he lacked professional-liability insurance.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
Respondent did not reply to relator’s inquiries about Lette’s grievance against 
him. 
{¶ 46} We agree with the board’s finding that these actions by respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A), 6-101(A)(2), 6-
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Sanction 
{¶ 47} 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 factors, the board found that respondent had engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct, committed multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in the disciplinary 
process, failed to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his actions, harmed vulnerable 
victims, and failed to make restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), (g), 
(h), and (i).  The board cited no mitigating factors. 
{¶ 48} Relator recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred.  
The master commissioner recommended that respondent be indefinitely 
suspended, but the board recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred 
because of his “multiple acts of dishonesty and the harm done to his clients.” 
{¶ 49} We agree that permanent disbarment is the appropriate sanction.  
Respondent’s dishonesty in his law practice, his lack of cooperation in the 
disciplinary process, and his repeated neglect of his clients’ legal matters 
demonstrate that he is not fit to practice law.  Attorneys must comply with the 
ethical requirements imposed by the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 
Rules of Professional Conduct.  Respondent has demonstrated time and again his 
unwillingness or inability to do so. 
{¶ 50} We have imposed a sanction of permanent disbarment in similar 
cases.  See, e.g., Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moushey, 104 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-
January Term, 2007 
11 
Ohio-6897, 819 N.E.2d 1112, ¶ 16 (explaining that the presumptive sanction is 
disbarment for those attorneys who accept retainers and then fail to carry out 
contracts of employment); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 102 Ohio St.3d 264, 
2004-Ohio-2683, 809 N.E.2d 1113, ¶ 15 (an attorney’s “persistent neglect of his 
clients’ interests, failure to perform as promised, failures to account for his 
clients’ money, and lack of any participation in the disciplinary proceedings” 
compel his disbarment); Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fodal, 100 Ohio St.3d 310, 
2003-Ohio-5852, 798 N.E.2d 1082 ¶ 32 (ordering the disbarment of an attorney 
who “routinely took his clients’ money and provided nothing in return”). 
{¶ 51} Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Becker & Mishkind Co., L.P.A., and Howard D. Mishkind; Stephen R. 
Lazarus; and McFadden & Associates Co., L.P.A., and Donald McFadden, for 
relator. 
______________________