Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Grove

Citation: 2000-Ohio-81

Docket Number: 20001146

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-11-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Grove, 90 Ohio St.3d 312, 2000-Ohio-81.] 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GROVE. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Grove (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 312.] 
Attorney at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Failing to notify twelve 
clients of appeal filed by prosecuting attorney and failing to file briefs in 
those cases — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Intentionally 
failing to seek lawful objectives of client. 
(No. 00-1146 — Submitted August 22, 2000 — Decided November 15, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-57. 
 
On August 10, 1998, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a two-
count complaint charging respondent, Charles L. Grove III of Dayton, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0029144, with violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) 
(neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him), 7-101(A)(1) (intentionally failing to 
seek lawful objectives of client), and 7-101(A)(3) (intentionally prejudicing or 
damaging client).  Respondent filed an answer on August 25, 1998, and a panel of 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board”) held a hearing in this matter on May 31, 2000. 
 
Respondent, an employee of the Montgomery County Public Defender’s 
Office, was the only attorney assigned to represent clients in appellate matters.  
Typically, respondent filed appeals on behalf of clients, challenging adverse trial 
court decisions.  Respondent further managed a trial docket in a small, outlying 
municipal court.  At about the time respondent engaged in the activities leading to 
the instant complaint, he was also assisting in installing and networking 
computers in the public defender’s office. 
 
 
2 
 
In 1995, according to respondent, the Montgomery County Prosecuting 
Attorney began to appeal all adverse decisions.  As a result of these appeals by the 
state, respondent’s caseload increased. 
 
In twelve cases that the prosecutor appealed, respondent failed to notify 
the clients of the appeal.  Moreover, he did not file briefs in these cases, despite 
receiving notice from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County that he file a 
brief or the court would decide the case without benefit of his brief.  See App.R. 
18(C).  Respondent consciously decided not to file briefs, in part, because he was 
overloaded with work.  He also concluded that his briefs would not change the 
outcomes of the appeals.  The court of appeals decided all twelve cases without 
receiving briefs from respondent. 
 
In mitigation, respondent stated that the court of appeals thoroughly 
analyzed the cases.  The parties stipulated that the court of appeals ruled 
consistently with controlling law and that respondent’s failure to file a brief did 
not prejudice any client.  Furthermore, respondent suffered from a painful back 
condition, which required surgery in July 1997, and cooperated completely with 
the investigation. 
 
The panel found that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-
101(A)(1).  The panel recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand.  
The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation 
of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Victor A. Hodge, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  We hereby publicly reprimand respondent and tax costs to him. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
 
3 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.