Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Ass n. v. Caliman

Citation: 1998-Ohio-26

Docket Number: 19972676

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-10-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. CALIMAN. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Caliman (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension — Failure to pursue a 
legal matter and misrepresentation of the status of that matter to clients. 
(No. 97-2676 — Submitted June 9, 1998 — Decided  October 28, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-113. 
 
On December 9, 1996, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent, A. Noel Caliman of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0023375, violated several Disciplinary Rules while representing 
Sandi Allen and her son, Gregory Allen, with respect to a motor vehicle accident.  
After respondent filed his answer, the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
Based on stipulations of the parties and evidence produced at a hearing, the 
panel found that respondent filed a personal injury action on behalf of  Sandi and 
Gregory Allen on March 7, 1991.  Respondent did not achieve service on the 
defendant within one year, and the case was dismissed with prejudice on October 
9, 1992.  Respondent did not file an appeal, but continued to represent to the 
Allens either actively, or by avoiding their telephone calls, that he was advancing 
their case.  It was not until August 1995 when the Allens employed another 
counsel who confronted respondent that respondent admitted that the case had 
been dismissed.  The panel concluded that respondent’s actions and failure to act 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation) and 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter). 
 
In mitigation, the panel received testimony and letters from attorneys and a 
judge with respect to respondent’s character, reputation, and ability.  It 
 
2
recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of six months with the 
entire six months stayed subject to monitoring by relator during the stayed 
suspension period to ensure that respondent’s case management system is 
satisfactory.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the panel. 
__________________ 
 
William E. Clements and Richard H. Johnson, for relator. 
 
H. Fred Hoefle, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings of the board.  The evidence considered 
by the panel involved both respondent’s failure to pursue a legal matter and 
respondent’s misrepresentation of the status of that matter to his clients.  We 
therefore adopt the conclusion of the board that respondent violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) and 6-101(A)(3).  In Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 
Ohio St.3d 187, 191, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240, a case very similar to this, we held that 
“when an attorney engages in a course of conduct * * * that violates DR 1-
102(A)(4), the attorney will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an 
appropriate period of time.”  In this case the board recommended that respondent 
be suspended for six months with the suspension stayed.  That recommendation 
does not follow the Fowerbaugh prescription of “actual suspension.” 
 
We hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for an 
actual period of six months.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment only.