Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Douglas

Citation: 2007-Ohio-1536

Docket Number: 20061902

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Douglas, 113 Ohio St.3d 221, 2007-Ohio-1536.] 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. DOUGLAS. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Douglas, 113 Ohio St.3d 221, 2007-Ohio-1536.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or 
misrepresentation — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Failure to 
carry out contract of employment — Conduct that prejudices or damages 
a client — Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation — Failure to 
promptly pay funds of client — Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2006-1902 — Submitted November 29, 2006 — Decided April 18, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-001. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In this case, we consider the appropriate sanction for an attorney 
who misled two clients, abandoned their claims without returning the fees paid to 
him, and failed to respond to their grievances and the subsequent disciplinary 
action and whose license had been suspended for failure to register.  Upon 
consideration of the circumstances in this case, we accept the recommendation of 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline and impose an 
indefinite suspension. 
{¶2} 
This court admitted respondent, Mark A. Douglas of Cleveland, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0073436, to the practice of law in Ohio in 2001, 
but suspended his license, on December 2, 2005, for his failure to register as an 
attorney.  In re Atty. Registration Suspension, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-
6408, 838 N.E.2d 671. 
{¶3} 
On February 13, 2006, relator, the Cleveland Bar Association, filed 
a complaint against respondent charging him with four counts of professional 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
misconduct.  He did not answer, and relator moved for default pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R.V(6)(F).  A master commissioner granted the motion for default, made 
findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the alleged misconduct, 
and agreed with relator’s recommendation that the board permanently disbar 
respondent.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of 
misconduct but recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended, and the 
matter is now before this court for our review. 
Misconduct 
Count I — Sir Louis Bankruptcy 
{¶4} 
In March 2004, Martha B. Sir Louis, then in her late seventies and 
having medical problems and significant debts, retained respondent to file a 
personal bankruptcy on her behalf.  Though Sir Louis paid him $500 and gave 
him documentation of her debts, respondent never filed the bankruptcy petition 
and, despite her attempts to contact him, never refunded any of her money or 
returned her documents. 
{¶5} 
The master commissioner concluded that by abandoning Sir 
Louis’s claim, respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3), which prohibits a lawyer 
from neglecting an entrusted legal matter, 7-101(A)(2), which prohibits a lawyer 
from intentionally failing to carry out a contract of professional employment, 7-
101(A)(3), which prohibits a lawyer from intentionally causing his client damage 
or prejudice, and 9-102(B)(4), which requires a lawyer to promptly deliver funds 
that a client is entitled to receive. 
Count II — Wilson Bankruptcy 
{¶6} 
In February 2004, Sir Louis’s daughter, Carolyn L. Wilson, 
retained respondent to file a personal bankruptcy on her behalf and paid him 
$584.  Respondent never filed the bankruptcy petition and, despite Wilson’s 
attempts to contact him, never refunded any of her money or returned any of her 
papers. 
January Term, 2007 
3 
{¶7} 
The master commissioner determined that by abandoning Wilson’s 
bankruptcy claim, respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-
101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4). 
Count III — Misrepresentations to Sir Louis and Wilson 
{¶8} 
Once hired, respondent asked Sir Louis and Wilson to meet him at 
his office to prepare for interviews before a bankruptcy trustee, creating the 
impression that he had filed both bankruptcy petitions in court.  During the 
appointment, respondent told them that he had filed their cases and that their 
interviews with the bankruptcy trustee needed to be rescheduled for separate dates 
and times.  Respondent then left the conference room, purportedly to call the 
bankruptcy trustee and cancel their scheduled interviews.  When he returned, 
respondent represented that he had spoken with the trustee and that their 
interviews would be rescheduled. 
{¶9} 
Neither Sir Louis nor Wilson could contact respondent to learn the 
rescheduled date of their interviews, and they ultimately discovered that 
respondent no longer conducted business at the office where they had previously 
met.  Respondent neither informed his clients of the change in address nor gave 
them a telephone number or other contact information. 
{¶10} The master commissioner found that by lying to his clients about 
the status of their cases, respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4), which prohibits 
conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation. 
Count IV — Failure to Cooperate in the Disciplinary Proceedings 
{¶11} In October 2005, an investigator employed by relator personally 
served a letter of inquiry concerning the Sir Louis grievance upon respondent at 
the City Mission, a homeless shelter in Cleveland, Ohio, where respondent lived.  
Respondent told the investigator that he would contact relator.  Relator received 
no response. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶12} On January 17, 2006, relator sent respondent notice of its intent to 
file a formal complaint, as well as a copy of the anticipated charges, by certified 
and regular mail addressed to him at the City Mission.  Although relator received 
a receipt for the certified mail service, and the regular mail was not returned to 
relator, respondent failed to reply. 
{¶13} In February 2006, relator served respondent with the complaint by 
certified mail.  On April 17, 2006, after he had failed to answer or respond, relator 
sent to him, by certified and regular mail, notice of its intent to file a motion for 
default.  Respondent again failed to reply, even though a certified mail receipt had 
been signed for on April 19 and the regular mail was not returned as unclaimed. 
{¶14} On April 18, 2006, relator, through its investigator, also served 
notice of the motion for default upon respondent in person at the City Mission.  
The investigator spoke with respondent and watched as he opened the envelope 
and read the contents.  Respondent signed a receipt for the notice. 
{¶15} Despite repeated attempts to obtain a response from him, 
respondent never contacted relator or replied to the grievances, complaint, or 
motion for default.  Accordingly, the master commissioner found respondent in 
violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), which requires a lawyer to cooperate in a 
disciplinary investigation. 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶16} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct in this 
case, the master commissioner considered aggravating and mitigating factors, 
pursuant to 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.”).  The master commissioner found several factors 
in aggravation, determining first that respondent had acted with a dishonest 
motive by lying to his clients.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b).  Second, 
because the misconduct involved two clients and multiple violations of the 
January Term, 2007 
5 
Disciplinary Rules, he found that respondent had engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d).  Third, the master 
commissioner found that respondent’s lack of cooperation in the disciplinary 
process and his refusal to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his conduct both were 
aggravating factors, pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e) and (g).  Fourth, 
because respondent had not repaid any of the retainer accepted from his clients, 
the master commissioner found that respondent had harmed vulnerable victims 
and had failed to make restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h) and (i).  
Lastly, the master commissioner recognized that respondent’s license to practice 
has been suspended for his failure to properly register as an attorney. 
{¶17} Based on these aggravating factors and on this court’s decision in 
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Helfgott, 109 Ohio St.3d 360, 2006-Ohio-2579, 847 
N.E.2d 1212, the master commissioner recommended permanent disbarment.  
Though it adopted the findings of the master commissioner, the board disagreed 
with the recommended sanction, stating, “Due to the scant evidence of harm to his 
clients and Respondent’s destitute circumstances, the Board recommends that the 
Respondent, Mark A. Douglas, be suspended from the practice of law in the State 
of Ohio indefinitely.” 
Review 
{¶18} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3), 
7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4), and that indefinite suspension is the 
appropriate sanction in this case.  We acknowledge that in Helfgott, supra, we 
permanently disbarred a lawyer who, for unknown reasons, kept unearned fees, 
lied to two clients about whether he had filed their foreclosure action and 
bankruptcy petition, and flatly ignored the disciplinary process, including a 
subpoena for his appearance.  This case, however, can be distinguished in that 
respondent had been living in a homeless shelter at the City Mission for several 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
months at the time relator attempted to obtain his response to these grievances and 
the disciplinary process. 
{¶19} Accordingly, respondent is indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio and ordered to pay restitution of $584 to Wilson and $500 
to Sir Louis within 30 days.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL 
and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
CUPP, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Heather M. Zirke, Assistant Bar Counsel, and Tahani M. Kablan, for 
relator. 
______________________