Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Church

Citation: 2007-Ohio-2744

Docket Number: 20062308

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-06-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Church, 114 Ohio St.3d 41, 2007-Ohio-2744.] 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. CHURCH. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Church, 114 Ohio St.3d 41, 2007-Ohio-2744.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice—Neglect of entrusted legal matters—Failure to cooperate in a 
disciplinary investigation—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2006-2308 — Submitted February 14, 2007 — Decided June 20, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-097. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Joseph Jeffrey Church of Solon, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0006961, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1979.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
now indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to practice based on findings that 
he abandoned two clients’ cases and also failed to respond as required during the 
investigation of his clients’ grievances.  On review, we adopt the board’s findings 
that respondent committed professional misconduct and hold that an indefinite 
suspension is appropriate. 
{¶2} 
Relator, Cleveland Bar Association, alleged in a three-count 
complaint that respondent had committed, along with other misconduct not found 
by the board, violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial 
to the administration of justice) and 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
neglecting an entrusted legal matter) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer 
to cooperate during a disciplinary investigation).  The board served respondent 
with the complaint by certified mail, but respondent did not answer, and pursuant 
to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F), relator moved for default.  A master commissioner 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
appointed by the board granted the motion, making findings of fact and 
conclusions of law and a recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
Count I – The Allen Grievance 
{¶3} 
In July 2003, Lisa Allen and her husband retained respondent to 
represent them in bankruptcy proceedings.  Respondent promised to prepare and 
file a bankruptcy petition on the Allens’ behalf after they paid his $1,200 fee.  The 
Allens paid the fee by August 4, 2003. 
{¶4} 
For the next seven months, the Allens tried to communicate with 
respondent but had no success.  By March 2004, the couple urgently needed their 
lawyer’s help because one or more creditors had succeeded in garnishing $906 
from Lisa’s checking account.  The Allens finally did speak with respondent in 
March, and he promised to file their bankruptcy petition before the end of April 
2004.  The Allens hired a new attorney, who filed their bankruptcy petition before 
the end of March 2004. 
{¶5} 
Respondent’s neglect deprived the Allens of bankruptcy protection 
and exposed them to garnishment proceedings.  He also never repaid the Allens 
any unearned fees.  By abandoning the Allens’ bankruptcy case, respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 6-101(A)(3). 
Count II – The Kennedy Grievance 
{¶6} 
In December 2003, Charlotte Kennedy and her husband retained 
respondent to represent them in a contract dispute with American Resorts 
International (“ARI”).  The Kennedys paid respondent $1,000, and he agreed in 
writing to pursue their claim for that amount plus 25 percent of any recovery in 
the lawsuit against ARI. 
{¶7} 
By the time the Kennedys hired respondent, they had already filed 
a complaint against ARI in a local municipal court.  Respondent advised the 
couple that he intended to ask the municipal court to dismiss their case without 
January Term, 2007 
3 
prejudice and to sue ARI in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.  The 
municipal court eventually dismissed the Kennedys’ case in July 2004, without 
prejudice, for failure to pay court costs.  Respondent never refiled the case. 
{¶8} 
By abandoning the Kennedys’ contract case, respondent violated 
DR 1-102(A)(5) and 6-101(A)(3). 
Count III – Failure to Respond During the Disciplinary Investigation 
{¶9} 
After the Allens filed a grievance against respondent in June 2004, 
relator sent two letters by regular mail and one by certified mail, all addressed to 
the address on file for respondent in the Office of Attorney Registration, to notify 
him of the grievance and request a response.  The United States Postal Service 
returned the certified letter as unclaimed but did not return the regular mail letters 
as undeliverable.  Respondent did not respond as requested to any of relator’s 
efforts to contact him. 
{¶10} After the Kennedys filed a grievance in July 2004, respondent 
signed the certified receipt for a letter that advised him of the grievance and 
requested a response.  He did not reply.  Relator then sent another letter, this time 
by regular mail, which the post office did not return as undeliverable, asking 
respondent again to respond.  He did not. 
{¶11} In August 2004, relator’s investigator actually spoke to respondent 
on the telephone.  When the investigator asked why he had not answered 
investigative inquiries, respondent said that he had not received any 
correspondence about the two grievances.  The investigator then transmitted the 
letters of inquiry by facsimile to respondent, who promised to call the investigator 
back if he did not receive them.  Respondent never called back, nor did he 
respond to a fourth letter requesting his response to the Allen grievance. 
{¶12} In October 2005, relator sent notice of intent to file a formal 
complaint to respondent by certified and regular mail, notifying him of the formal 
disciplinary charges to be filed.  The certified letter went unclaimed, but the post 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
office did not return the regular mail letter as undeliverable.  Respondent did not 
respond. 
{¶13} By ignoring relator’s investigative inquiries, respondent violated 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Sanction 
{¶14} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider the 
duties violated, the actual or potential injury caused, the attorney's mental state, 
and sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown (1999), 
87 Ohio St.3d 316, 720 N.E.2d 525.  Before making a final determination, we also 
weigh evidence of 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.”).  Id.; see, also, Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 
2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, and Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Glatki (2000), 88 
Ohio St.3d 381, 726 N.E.2d 993. 
{¶15} Respondent neglected his duty to diligently pursue his clients’ 
claims, causing them financial loss and inconvenience, the very results that they 
had paid him to prevent.  By failing to participate, even after a personal request, in 
the process that enforces the high ethical standards of the Ohio bar, he also 
intentionally breached his duty to the legal profession. 
{¶16} Relator advocated respondent’s permanent disbarment.  In 
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Judge (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 331, 763 N.E.2d 114, 
however, another lawyer neglected two clients’ cases, ignored investigative 
inquiries into their grievances, and did not appear at a hearing on the charges of 
misconduct.  We imposed an indefinite suspension, observing the rule that 
“‘[n]eglect of legal matters and a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary 
investigation generally warrant an indefinite suspension from the practice of law 
in Ohio.’ ” Id. at 332, 763 N.E.2d 114, quoting Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder (1999), 
January Term, 2007 
5 
87 Ohio St.3d 211, 212, 718 N.E.2d 1271.  See, also, Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Henderson (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 219, 221, 718 N.E.2d 1277, and Warren Cty. 
Bar Assn. v. Lieser (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 488, 490, 683 N.E.2d 1148. 
{¶17} The master commissioner and board found no mitigating factors 
but did find the following aggravating factors: a pattern of misconduct, lack of 
cooperation in the disciplinary process, failure to acknowledge the wrongful 
nature of his conduct, and failure to make restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(c), (e), (g), and (i).  But the master commissioner and board both 
recommended, consistent with the cited case law, that respondent’s license be 
indefinitely suspended.  We accept this recommendation. 
{¶18} Respondent is therefore indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Gallagher Sharp, Alan M. Petrov, and Darlene E. White, for relator. 
______________________