Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. France

Citation: 2002-Ohio-5945

Docket Number: 20021130

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-11-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. France, 97 Ohio St.3d 240, 2002-Ohio-5945.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FRANCE. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. France, 97 Ohio St.3d 240, 2002-Ohio-5945.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Seriously 
neglecting two clients’ cases — Repeatedly ignoring efforts to 
investigate misconduct — Recent suspension from the practice of law for 
overcharging a client. 
(No. 2002-1130 — Submitted August 27, 2002 — Decided November 13, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-79. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
We are asked in this case to determine the sanction for an attorney 
who seriously neglected two clients’ cases and then, despite having been 
disciplined recently for other serious misconduct, repeatedly ignored efforts to 
investigate the neglect.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline found that respondent, John S. France of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0014846, committed these acts and thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 6-
101(A)(1) (handling a legal matter that a lawyer is incompetent to handle) and (3) 
(neglecting an entrusted legal matter), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failure to 
cooperate in the investigation of misconduct).  The board recommended that 
respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  In view of 
the misconduct in this case, respondent’s disciplinary record, and the fact that no 
compelling mitigating circumstances warrant a more lenient disposition, we agree 
that disbarment is appropriate. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶2} 
Prior to July 1997, respondent agreed to represent a client in her 
claim against a hospital for medical malpractice.  The client signed a contingency 
fee agreement, and on July 31, 1997, respondent sent the hospital and an affiliated 
medical organization notice of intent to sue.  Respondent never initiated the 
lawsuit, however, nor did he do anything to preserve his client’s malpractice 
claim.  In fact, respondent did little to develop the case.  According to an affidavit 
attached to relator’s motion for default, the statute of limitations elapsed, barring 
respondent’s client’s cause of action. 
{¶3} 
In August 1999, respondent agreed to represent another client in a 
criminal case for $1,000.  The client eventually pled guilty and was sentenced to 
two nine-year jail terms to run consecutively.  The client asked respondent to 
appeal his conviction and challenge the imposition of the consecutive sentences.  
The client’s grandmother paid respondent $200 for the appeal. 
{¶4} 
Respondent filed his client’s criminal appeal in March 2000.  Over 
the succeeding several months, respondent requested and received three 
extensions of time in which to file a brief.  Finally, on August 17, 2000, the court 
of appeals dismissed the client’s appeal for failure to prosecute.  On the same day, 
respondent contacted the client’s grandmother and asked for another $200.  The 
client’s family later learned from the court that his appeal had been dismissed.  
Respondent did refund the money his client’s family paid for the appeal. 
{¶5} 
In August 2000, after the Toledo Bar Association received no 
response to two requests for information about a grievance submitted by 
respondent’s client in the malpractice suit, the bar association transferred the 
matter to relator, Disciplinary Counsel.  Relator investigated the allegations of 
respondent’s professional misconduct in the criminal appeal as well as the 
malpractice case.  With respect to the malpractice case, relator sent three certified 
letters of inquiry for which respondent or his wife signed, but to which respondent 
did not answer. With respect to the criminal case, relator sent two more certified 
January Term, 2002 
3 
letters of inquiry to respondent: one to his office address, the second to the 
residential address that respondent had provided to the Attorney Registration 
Office.  The certified receipt for the first letter was returned, but unsigned.  The 
second letter came back unclaimed. 
{¶6} 
Respondent eventually appeared for his deposition in February 
2001.  His testimony revealed that he actually had no clear idea how to determine 
the statute of limitations for his client’s malpractice case.  He also related that he 
had handled very few if any criminal appeals before agreeing to represent the 
client whose appeal was ultimately dismissed. 
{¶7} 
Relator filed a complaint on October 8, 2001, charging respondent 
with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent was 
served with the complaint but did not answer, and relator filed a motion for 
default.  A master commissioner assigned by the board reviewed the evidence, 
found the facts as stated, and concluded that respondent had violated the cited 
Disciplinary Rules. 
{¶8} 
In recommending a sanction, the master commissioner considered 
as mitigating the fact that respondent had refunded some of the fees paid by the 
family of his criminal client and that he had appeared for his deposition.  On the 
other hand, the master commissioner observed that respondent had recently 
received a two-year suspension from the practice of law, with reinstatement to be 
permitted during the second year on conditions, for charging fraudulent expenses 
to an incarcerated client.  Disciplinary Counsel v. France (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 
169, 753 N.E.2d 202.  The master commissioner also considered that respondent 
had engaged in a pattern of misconduct, that he had failed to cooperate with the 
disciplinary investigation, and that his clients both suffered from his neglect. 
{¶9} 
The master commissioner recommended that respondent be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s findings of misconduct, but it recommended permanent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
disbarment based on respondent’s “continuing pattern of misconduct and his 
disregard of the disciplinary system.” 
{¶10} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 6-101(A)(1) 
and (3),  and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  We also agree that respondent should be 
disbarred. 
{¶11} Just last year, we suspended respondent from practicing law 
because he took advantage of a particularly vulnerable client by overcharging her.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. France, supra, 93 Ohio St.3d 169, 753 N.E.2d 202.  In 
that case, the overcharges bordered on misappropriation, an offense for which the 
sanction is presumptively disbarment.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio 
St.3d 490, 2002-Ohio-2490, 769 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 15.  The offenses before us today 
involve similarly victimized clients, and respondent compounded the misconduct 
by ignoring repeated attempts to investigate his misconduct.  And for all this, he 
offers neither explanation nor apology. 
{¶12} No mitigating circumstance justifies leniency in this case.  
Accordingly, respondent is permanently disbarred from the practice of law in 
Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________