Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Deffet

Citation: 2004-Ohio-6770

Docket Number: 20041370

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-12-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Deffet, 104 Ohio St.3d 544, 2004-Ohio-6770.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. DEFFET. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Deffet, 104 Ohio St.3d 544, 2004-Ohio-6770.] 
Attorneys at law – Misconduct – Indefinite suspension – Neglecting entrusted 
legal matter — Failure to carry out contract for professional employment 
— Conduct prejudicial to administration of justice — Engaging in conduct 
involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation — Failing to 
cooperate in investigation of misconduct. 
(No. 2004-1370 — Submitted September 28, 2004 — Decided December 17, 
2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-010. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Stephen P. Deffet of Dublin, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0039384, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1987.  
On March 26, 2003, we publicly reprimanded respondent for professional 
misconduct, including neglecting an entrusted legal matter, providing legal advice 
to an unrepresented opposing party, failing to cooperate with the disciplinary 
investigation, and failing to properly register as an attorney with the Supreme 
Court.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Deffet, 98 Ohio St.3d 384, 2003-Ohio-1090, 785 
N.E.2d 746. 
{¶ 2} On February 17, 2004, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged 
respondent, in a three-count complaint, of having again violated the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  Service of the complaint by certified mail and by the 
Franklin County Sheriff failed.  On July 19, 2004, the Clerk of the Supreme Court 
was served with the complaint as respondent’s statutory agent pursuant to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  On May 27, 2004, relator moved for default, see Gov.Bar 
R. V(6)(F), and respondent did not respond.  A 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 
Count 1 – The Williams Grievance 
{¶ 3} Margaret and William Williams consulted respondent in March 
2003 about problems they had discovered with a home they had purchased.  
Respondent recommended that the couple sue the seller and anticipated a $5,000 
recovery.  The Williamses paid respondent $500 to represent them. 
{¶ 4} The following month, the Williamses’ repeated attempts to contact 
respondent were unsuccessful.  The couple eventually reported respondent to 
disciplinary authorities.  According to their grievance, respondent did nothing in 
the Williamses’ behalf and did not refund their money.  They eventually 
consulted another attorney, who advised them that suing the seller would likely 
cost more than they could hope to recover. 
{¶ 5} In the Williamses’ case, the board found that respondent had 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (barring an attorney from conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (barring an attorney from 
engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law), 6-
101(A)(3) (barring an attorney from neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(1) (barring an attorney from intentionally failing to seek the lawful 
objectives of his client), 7-101(A)(2) (barring an attorney from intentionally 
failing to carry out a contract for professional employment), and 9-102(B)(3) 
(requiring an attorney to maintain complete records of all client funds in the 
attorney’s possession and to render appropriate accounts to his clients regarding 
them). 
January Term, 2004 
3 
Count II – The Trust Account 
{¶ 6} On December 24, 2002, respondent wrote a $575 check to National 
Check Cashers.  On January 22, 2003, respondent wrote another $575 check  to 
National Check Cashers.  Both checks were drawn on respondent’s client trust 
account and were returned for insufficient funds.  Neither check bore any 
endorsement to suggest that it was given to a client or written on a client’s behalf, 
raising the inference that respondent kept the check proceeds.  The record, 
however, lacks evidence to support that finding. 
{¶ 7} On May 15, 2003, National Check Cashers filed a complaint for 
$1,200 in Franklin County Municipal Court to recover the funds from the two 
checks and bounced-check fees.  Respondent failed to appear, and on June 18, 
2003, the court entered a default judgment against respondent for $1,200.  The 
board found that respondent had thereby committed additional violations of DR 1-
102(A)(4) and 1-102(A)(6). 
Count III – Failure to Cooperate 
{¶ 8} Despite numerous attempts to get respondent to participate in the 
disciplinary process, respondent never replied to the allegations against him.  
Respondent received but did not reply to letters of inquiry mailed to his address.  
Relator subpoenaed respondent to appear and testify and produce documents, but 
he did not appear or produce requested documents.  Ultimately, respondent could 
not be found, a situation requiring relator to serve the complaint pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). 
{¶ 9} The board found that respondent’s conduct during the disciplinary 
investigation violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (barring conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice) and constituted another violation of DR 1-102(A)(6).  
The board also found that respondent’s failure to cooperate in the disciplinary 
process violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Sanction 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 10} 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 
an aggravating factor, the board found that respondent had a history of 
misconduct, having been publicly reprimanded for misconduct in 2003.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a).  The board also found that respondent is not currently 
registered to practice law in Ohio.  Moreover, respondent had acted out of self-
interest, committed multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in the disciplinary 
process, refused to acknowledge his wrongdoing, harmed a vulnerable client, and 
failed to make restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i).  
The board found no mitigating evidence. 
{¶ 11} Consistent 
with 
relator’s 
suggestion 
and 
the 
master 
commissioner’s recommendation, the board recommended that respondent be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. 
{¶ 12} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 
(5), and (6); 6-101(A)(3); 7-101(A)(1) and (2); 9-102(B)(3); and Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G), as found by the board.  We also find that indefinite suspension is 
appropriate.  Respondent neglected his clients’ case, acted dishonestly, and 
wholly ignored investigative inquires and resulting disciplinary proceedings.  This 
misconduct, coupled with a prior disciplinary record, warrants an indefinite 
suspension.  Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lawrence, 101 Ohio St.3d 4, 2003-Ohio-
6450, 800 N.E.2d 1108 (attorney with history of misconduct indefinitely 
suspended for dishonesty, neglecting entrusted legal matters, and lack of 
cooperation). 
{¶ 13} Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
January Term, 2004 
5 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Bruce A. Campbell, Jill M. Snitcher McQuain and Lance Tibbles, for 
relator. 
______________________