Case Title: Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Williams

Citation: 2001-Ohio-160

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-06-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Williams, 92 Ohio St.3d 104, 2001-Ohio-160.] 
 
 
 
ALLEN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILLIAMS. 
[Cite as Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Williams (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 104.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with entire six months 
stayed with one-year probation — Dismissal of appeal in criminal case 
without clients’ consent. 
(No. 00-2251 — Submitted February 7, 2001 — Decided June 13, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-71. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On December 18, 1996, James and Richard Hardin were 
convicted by the Court of Common Pleas of Hardin County of receiving stolen 
property, a felony.  In addition, James Hardin was found guilty of felony theft.  
Sentencing took place in February 1997.  On March 6, 1997, respondent, Jeffrey 
G. Williams of Lima, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0010085, filed a notice of 
appeal on their behalf.  On the day the appellate brief was due, respondent 
dismissed their appeal, and the judgments became final. 
 
On October 15, 1999, relator, Allen County Bar Association, filed a 
complaint alleging that the Hardins did not give consent to the dismissals and that 
therefore respondent violated several Disciplinary Rules. Respondent answered, 
and the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline (“board”). 
 
Based on stipulations and evidence received at a hearing on September 1, 
2000, the panel found that respondent, who had represented the Hardins at their 
criminal trial, agreed to represent them on appeal.  The panel found that 
respondent dismissed the appeal because after examining the transcript, he 
believed that there was no error except one possibly related to venue.  Respondent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
did not raise the venue issue on appeal because he believed that the judge in 
Auglaize County, where venue might have been proper, would sentence the 
Hardins to prison, whereas the Hardins’ present sentence was probation.  
Respondent admitted that in seventeen years of practicing law, he had not taken 
any criminal appeals although he had substantial experience with criminal cases.  
He also admitted that he was unaware that under Ohio law, by using what is 
known as an “Anders brief,” he could have submitted a request to the appellate 
court that it inspect the trial record for any appellate issues. 
 
The respondent claimed that he had advised the Hardins that he would 
dismiss the case if he found that there was no error to support the appeal and that 
the Hardins consented.  However, the Hardins claimed that respondent dismissed 
the appeal without their permission.  The panel found that although respondent 
may have made some effort to advise the Hardins that the appeal would be 
dismissed, that effort was inadequate and ineffective. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(2) 
(handling a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances), 7-
101(A)(1) (failing to seek the lawful objectives of the client by reasonable 
means), and 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract for professional services). 
 
The panel noted in mitigation that respondent cooperated with the relator 
and regretted his actions.  It also found that the Hardins did not pay respondent in 
full for his trial work and that the $1,000 the Hardins paid respondent to pursue 
their appeal covered costs of transcripts and filing fees but no appellate attorney 
fees.  In addition, the panel noted that respondent had previously received a public 
reprimand from this court.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams (1990), 51 Ohio 
St.3d 36, 553 N.E.2d 1082. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice 
of law for six months with the entire six months stayed.  Respondent would be 
placed on probation for one year, during which time he would complete six hours 
January Term, 2001 
3 
of continuing legal education regarding client communication, office 
management, and billing, and during probation, he would cooperate fully with a 
mentor appointed by relator to ensure that respondent uses adequate procedures to 
communicate with his clients and keeps them well informed about their cases.  
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
 
After review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice 
of law for six months with the entire six months stayed.  Further,  respondent is 
hereby placed on probation for one year during which time he shall complete six 
hours of continuing legal education regarding client communication, office 
management, and billing.  During his probation he shall also cooperate fully with 
a monitoring attorney appointed by relator to ensure that he uses adequate 
procedures to communicate with his clients and keeps them well informed about 
their cases. Failure to meet the terms of  this probation will result in the 
imposition of the actual suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissenting.  I would suspend respondent for six months and 
not stay the suspension. 
__________________ 
 
Jerry O. Pitts and John C. Keenehan, for relator. 
 
Richard T. Reese, for respondent. 
__________________