Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Lutchin

Citation: 2001-Ohio-1304

Docket Number: 20010744

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-08-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lutchin, 93 Ohio St.3d 147, 2001-Ohio-1304] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LUTCHIN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lutchin (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 147.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Failing to prepare 
and file client’s income tax returns for 1994 and 1995, not informing 
client of failure to do so, and not requesting an extension for filing the 
returns — Failing to cooperate with Office of Disciplinary Counsel — 
Failing to respond to Disciplinary Counsel’s subpoenas — Failing to 
attend to Supreme Court’s orders. 
(No. 01-744 — Submitted May 30, 2001 — Decided August 15, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-63. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On July 19, 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 
filed a complaint charging respondent, Howard L. Lutchin of Cincinnati, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0031539, with several violations of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  Respondent failed to answer and the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) 
referred relator’s motion for default to Master Commissioner John R. Milligan 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R.V(6)(F)(2). 
 
Based on the complaint and the affidavits attached to the motion for 
default, the master commissioner found that in 1994, Kenneth Rengering retained 
respondent to prepare and file his income tax returns for that calendar year and 
forwarded the necessary information to him.  Respondent failed to prepare or file 
the returns and did not inform Rengering that he neither filed the returns nor 
requested an extension for filing them.  In 1995, Rengering again retained 
respondent to prepare and file his income tax returns, this time for the calendar 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
year 1995, and forwarded the necessary information to him.  Again, respondent 
failed to prepare or file the returns, failed to request an extension, and failed to 
inform Rengering of these omissions.  In May 1997, the United States Department 
of Treasury advised Rengering that his returns for 1994 and 1995 were 
delinquent. 
 
After Rengering filed a grievance with relator in July 1997, relator sent a 
letter of inquiry to respondent, who did not reply.  Relator then contacted 
respondent by telephone, and respondent indicated that he would reply to the 
letter of inquiry by August 25, 1997.  Respondent did not reply and did not reply 
to a second letter sent by relator. 
 
Respondent failed to appear for a December 8, 1997 deposition after being 
served with a subpoena, and then again failed to appear for the rescheduled 
deposition set for December 19, 1997, after being served with another subpoena 
and agreeing to appear.  Respondent did not appear for a deposition on February 
18, 1998, after being served with a third subpoena. Although having agreed to do 
so after being called by relator, respondent failed to attend a fourth scheduled 
deposition on February 26, 1998.  Relator then telephoned respondent, who 
requested an opportunity to appear and selected the date of March 5, 1998, for the 
deposition.  Although relator again telephoned respondent on March 4, 1998, to 
remind him of the deposition the next day, respondent failed to appear for the 
deposition. 
 
On May 27, 1998, we issued an order for respondent to show cause why 
he should not be held in contempt for these failures to appear. Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Lutchin (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 1420, 694 N.E.2d 466.  Respondent did 
not file a response, and on August 5, 1998, we found him in contempt of court 
and suspended him from the practice of law. Disciplinary Counsel v. Lutchin 
(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 1401, 697 N.E.2d 664.  On April 6, 2000, we found 
respondent in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance with our 
January Term, 2001 
3 
previous order.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Lutchin (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 1461, 726 
N.E.2d 1000. 
 
The master commissioner further found that respondent failed to register 
with the Office of Attorney Registration of the Supreme Court of Ohio for the 
1999-2000 biennium. 
 
The master commissioner concluded that respondent’s failure to act for his 
client, his failures to cooperate with relator and respond to relator’s subpoenas, 
and his failure to attend to our orders violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-
102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration 
of justice), 2-106(A) (a lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or 
collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 7-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not 
intentionally fail to seek the lawful objectives of a client), 7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer 
shall not fail to carry out a contract for professional employment), 7-101(A)(3) (a 
lawyer shall not prejudice or damage his client during the course of the 
professional relationship), and 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the 
client funds or property to which the client is entitled).  He also concluded that 
respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(D) (an attorney shall keep the Attorney 
Registration Office apprised of his current residence address), and Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in an investigation 
or hearing).  The master commissioner recommended that the respondent be 
permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  The board adopted the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the master commissioner. 
 
We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board.  
Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kenneth R. Donchatz, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________