Case Title: Northwestern Ohio Bar Assn. v. Lauber

Citation: 2004-Ohio-6237

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-12-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Northwestern Ohio Bar Assn. v. Lauber, 104 Ohio St.3d 121, 2004-Ohio-6237.] 
 
 
NORTHWESTERN OHIO BAR ASSOCIATION v. LAUBER. 
[Cite as Northwestern Ohio Bar Assn. v. Lauber, 104 Ohio St.3d 121, 2004-
Ohio-6237.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Repeatedly 
neglecting entrusted legal matters — Failing to cooperate in disciplinary 
process. 
(No. 2003-2171 — Submitted March 15, 2004 — Decided December 8, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-77. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Robert Charles Lauber of Wauseon, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0025035, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1969.  
On October 7, 2002, relator, Northwestern Ohio Bar Association, filed a six-count 
complaint charging respondent with violations of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  Respondent was served with the complaint but did not answer, 
and relator moved for default.  See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
referred the motion to a master commissioner.  The master commissioner granted 
the motion for default and prepared a report for the board’s review.  The board 
adopted the master commissioner’s findings that respondent had violated DR 6-
101(A)(3) (barring an attorney from neglecting an entrusted legal matter) in 
connection with six counts of misconduct and recommended that respondent be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 3} The board’s findings of misconduct were based on an 
investigator’s sworn statement that he had conducted an investigation of the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
charges against respondent and knew the charges to be true insofar as the motion 
for default alleged.  We do not find this summary, conclusory, and hearsay-filled 
affidavit of sufficient weight or probative force to constitute the “[s]worn or 
certified documentary prima facie evidence” that Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1)(b) 
requires to sustain a motion for default.  Correspondingly, this affidavit is not 
sufficient to sustain relator’s burden of proving respondent’s alleged violations of 
DR 6-101(A)(3) by clear and convincing evidence.  See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(J) and 
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Reid (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 327, 331, 708 N.E.2d 193. 
{¶ 4} Thus, pursuant to our independent review in cases of professional 
misconduct, Reid at paragraph one of the syllabus, we return this cause to the 
board for further proceedings and findings consistent with our order, including the 
submission and consideration of evidence that directly establishes the charges of 
respondent’s misconduct. 
Cause remanded. 
 
MOYER, C.J., F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR 
and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
James P. Spriggs, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
______________________