Case Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dewey

Citation: 2001-Ohio-202

Docket Number: 20010371

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-07-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dewey, 92 Ohio St.3d 419., 2001-Ohio-202] 
 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. DEWEY. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dewey (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 419.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Communicating on the subject 
of representation with a party known to be represented by another lawyer. 
(No. 01-371 — Submitted April 2, 2001 — Decided July 18, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of 
the Supreme Court, No. 00-43. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On June 5, 2000, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent, Ronald D. Dewey of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
0061193, violated DR 7-104(A)(1) (while representing a client, a lawyer shall not 
communicate on the subject of the representation with a party known to be represented by 
another lawyer).  Respondent failed to answer, and the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) referred the matter to Master 
Commissioner Harry W. White to rule on relator’s motion for default. 
 
Based on affidavits attached to relator’s motion and an April 2000 show cause 
hearing, the master commissioner found that in March 1999, respondent represented a 
land-contract vendee in default on her payments who had arranged for a loan to discharge 
the balance owed to the vendors.  To conclude the loan to the vendee, the mortgage 
lender required that the land-contract vendors sign certain documents.  Respondent knew 
that the vendors were represented by counsel.  Discovering that the land-contract 
vendors’ attorney was out of town, respondent telephoned the vendors and demanded that 
they execute the necessary documents for the mortgage company or he would sue the 
vendors on behalf of his client for thousands of dollars.  The mortgage company had 
threatened to cancel the loan commitment unless the documents were executed on that 
day.  Ultimately, the transaction was effected. 
 
Although he did not file a responsive pleading to the complaint, at the April 
show-cause hearing respondent claimed that the vendors wanted to recover the property 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
and therefore did not want the default cured.  He further suggested that this grievance was 
filed with the Toledo Bar Association in retaliation.  Respondent denied that he spoke 
with the vendors. 
 
The master commissioner found the facts as pleaded and concluded that because 
respondent had contacted a party who he knew was represented by counsel, he violated 
the Disciplinary Rule as charged.  The master commissioner recommended that 
respondent receive a public reprimand.  The board adopted the findings, conclusion, and 
recommendation of the master commissioner. 
 
On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation 
of the board.  Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Catherine G. Hoolahan and William C. Eickholt, for relator. 
__________________