Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Reed

Citation: 2000-Ohio-270

Docket Number: 19991559

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-02-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Reed, 88 Ohio St.3d 48, 2000-Ohio-270.] 
 
 
 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. REED. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Reed (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 48.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with entire suspension 
stayed — Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice 
law — Neglecting an entrusted legal matter — Failing to seek lawful 
objectives of client — Failing to carry out contract of employment. 
(No. 99-1559 — Submitted October 12, 1999 — Decided February 9, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-18. 
 
After the Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the felony conviction of 
Adam Sanders, his mother, Debra Carpenter, asked respondent, Joseph D. Reed of 
Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0025938, to file an appeal for Sanders 
in the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Respondent agreed to file the appeal for a fee of 
$5,000, and advised Carpenter that if she was unable to pay the entire fee before 
the filing deadline of January 20, 1997, she should have the public defender file a 
notice of appeal to preserve Sanders’s rights. 
 
Carpenter paid respondent $1,000 before the deadline, and he deposited the 
money in his trust account.  On February 27, 1997, Carpenter paid respondent an 
additional $4,000, and he deposited this amount into his firm account together with 
the $1,000 previously paid.  At that time, respondent represented to Carpenter that 
even though the time for appeal had passed, there were substantial grounds for the 
delayed appeal that he would file. 
 
Respondent did not take any further action in Sanders’s case, failed to tell 
Sanders and Carpenter that he had not acted, and failed to return the $5,000 to 
Carpenter until she filed a grievance with relator, Columbus Bar Association. 
 
 
2
 
Relator filed a complaint charging that respondent’s representations, actions, 
and failure to act violated several Disciplinary Rules.  After respondent answered, 
a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”) found the above facts as stipulated to by the parties. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on an attorney’s fitness to practice law), 2-106(A) 
(collecting a clearly excessive fee), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal 
matter), 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek the lawful objectives of a client), and 7-
101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract of employment).  Based on mitigating 
circumstances relating to respondent’s previously unblemished record, his remorse, 
and his commitment to practice properly in the future, the panel recommended that 
the respondent be publicly reprimanded.  The board adopted the findings and 
conclusions of the panel but recommended that the respondent be suspended from 
the practice of law for six months with the entire suspension stayed. 
__________________ 
 
Terry K. Sherman and Bruce A. Campbell, for relator. 
 
Joseph D. Reed, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board, except the 
conclusion that respondent violated DR 2-106(A), as to which we make no finding.  
We also adopt the recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended 
from the practice of law for six months with the entire six-month suspension 
stayed.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
 
3
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  I agree with the majority that suspension is the 
appropriate sanction here, but I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to 
stay respondent’s suspension. 
 
Respondent accepted the $4,000 balance of his fee for an appeal to this court 
over a month after the deadline for Sanders’s appeal had passed.  Respondent told 
his client that there were substantial grounds for a delayed appeal, then failed to 
file a motion for delayed appeal and notice of appeal. Indeed, respondent failed to 
take any action after receiving the funds, and failed to return the fee until Carpenter 
filed a grievance with relator. 
 
When respondent neglected an entrusted legal matter in violation of DR 6-
101(A)(3), respondent violated the duty of diligence that he owed to his client.  His 
was a knowing violation.  “Suspension is generally appropriate when * * * a 
lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or 
potential injury to a client.”  ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, 
Standard 4.42(a).1  Suspension is also an appropriate sanction for respondent’s 
violations of DR 1-102(A)(6), 7-101(A)(1), and 7-101(A)(2), which constituted 
knowing violations of respondent’s duties of candor and diligence.  See id., 
Standards 4.62 and 4.42. 
 
In my view, the mitigating factors mentioned in the panel and board reports 
are insufficient to warrant staying respondent’s suspension.  “Absence of a prior 
disciplinary record” is a mitigating factor under the board’s recently proposed 
guidelines.2  But remorse for misdeeds, a commitment to practice law properly, 
and the absence of a disciplinary record are qualities that we expect of every 
attorney who takes the oath to practice law in this state.  See Gov.Bar R. I(8)(A).  
Thus, in the absence of more compelling mitigating factors, I would not stay the 
entirety of respondent’s suspension. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
 
 
4
FOOTNOTES: 
 
1. 
ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, Standards for Imposing 
Lawyer Sanctions (1991 & Amend.1992). 
 
2. 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, Proposed 
Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings, Section 
10(B)(1), Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.