Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ellis

Citation: 2008-Ohio-5278

Docket Number: 20080843

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-10-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ellis, 120 Ohio St.3d 89, 2008-Ohio-5278.] 
 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. ELLIS. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ellis, 120 Ohio St.3d 89, 2008-Ohio-5278.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year license suspension followed by two-
year probation — Restitution ordered. 
(No. 2008-0843 – Submitted June 24, 2008 – Decided October 16, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-037. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Madry Leonard Ellis of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0067703, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1997.  In June 2007, 
relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a 19-count complaint against respondent 
with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, alleging 
numerous disciplinary rule violations.  Respondent answered. 
{¶ 2} Shortly thereafter, relator and respondent entered into stipulations, 
agreeing to all of the facts contained in the complaint.  They further stipulated to 
the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case and filed a joint 
recommendation of a sanction.  The recommended discipline was for a two-year 
suspension of respondent’s law license, followed by a two-year probationary 
period with conditions.  A panel of the board held a hearing on the complaint and 
considered the stipulations of facts, violations, and proposed sanctions.  It 
recommended their adoption by the board.  The board approved the panel’s 
recommendation.  Upon review, we adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and 
recommended sanction. 
{¶ 3} The misconduct at issue involves similar patterns of deceit, 
neglect, and noncommunication with regard to 18 criminal defendants, including 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
incarcerated clients who had been seeking various forms of relief.  Between 2003 
and 2006, respondent accepted funds to represent each of these individuals, in 
amounts ranging from $750 (Count 10) to $10,000 (Count 16).  In nine instances, 
respondent either did not initiate or did not complete the tasks for which he had 
been retained.  (Counts 1-3, 6, 8, 11-13, 16.)  On two of those occasions, 
respondent misrepresented to his client and/or his client’s family that he had filed 
the necessary paperwork when in fact he had not.  (Counts 6, 13.) 
{¶ 4} Common to all counts is deceit followed by a lack of satisfactory 
communication between respondent and his client and/or his client’s family.  On 
five occasions, respondent accepted an initial fee and had no further contact with 
the client and/or the client’s family.  (Counts 1, 2, 4, 8, 13.)  Respondent’s 
communication with eight other clients was either so infrequent or so untimely 
that respondent was forced to concede its inadequacy.  (Counts 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 
12, 17.)  Compounding the negative effects of this behavior were respondent’s 
repeated refusals to answer verbal and written requests for information and case 
status from his clients and/or their families.  (Counts 1, 3, 6, 8-11, 13, 15, 16, 18.)  
Respondent similarly failed to respond to many of relator’s letters during the 
course of the latter’s investigation. 
{¶ 5} At his hearing before the board, respondent testified that during the 
period in question, his office was a one-man enterprise.  Respondent alone 
answered the phone and wrote letters, in addition to doing all his own research, 
writing, and typing.  Respondent indicated that after several notable successes in 
his criminal practice during 2002 and 2003, requests for representation increased 
considerably.  Respondent’s case load rose each year between 2003 and 2006, to 
the point where he was devoting nearly all of his time to trying cases and paying 
“hardly any attention” to the postconviction work.  Respondent became 
overwhelmed and, in his own words, “shut down.”  Eventually, he just stopped 
January Term, 2008 
3 
going to the office.  Respondent stipulated that his acts violated the rules 
governing the practice of law. 
{¶ 6} Because of the number of clients involved, the violations are many.  
In 14 counts, the board found a violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on the fitness to practice law).  At least a dozen violations 
were found of four other rules:  DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal 
matter), 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek lawful objectives of the client), DR 9-
102(B)(4) (failing to properly pay or deliver funds or property to which the client 
is entitled), and Gov.Bar R. V4(G) (failure to cooperate in a disciplinary 
investigation). 
{¶ 7} Respondent was found to have 13 violations of DR 1-104(A) 
(failure to notify clients of lack of malpractice insurance), two of DR 1-102(A)(4) 
(engaging in conduct involving deceit), and three of DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).   
 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated to the aggravating and mitigating factors in 
this case  after considering the criteria in Section 10(B) of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Five 
aggravating factors were cited:  (1) multiple offenses, BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(d); (2) a pattern of misconduct, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c); (3) selfish 
motive, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b); (4) vulnerability of and resulting harm to 
his clients, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h); and (5) failure to make restitution to all 
but two of his clients as of the date of the hearing, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(i). 
{¶ 9} In mitigation, evidence established that respondent had suffered 
and continues to suffer from depression, for which he is now being treated. 
Respondent has since signed a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”) and is currently in compliance with that contract and its 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
conditions.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).  The board also noted that respondent 
had no prior disciplinary record.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). 
{¶ 10} Relator and respondent jointly recommended that respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years. They also jointly 
agreed that  reinstatement be contingent upon his meeting the following 
conditions:  (1) provision of medical evidence that respondent can ethically and 
competently practice law, (2) continued maintenance of respondent’s contract 
with OLAP, and (3) a two-year probation period under the supervision of a 
monitor appointed by the relator. 
{¶ 11} It was also jointly agreed that reinstatement would be contingent 
upon full restitution to the victims.  Respondent and relator stipulated that 
restitution is owed  to the following individuals in the following amounts: (1) 
Michael Caldwell, $1,500; (2) Eddie Jones, $1,000; (3) Shirley Berenyi, $6,000; 
(4) Carlos Daniels, $1,500; (5) Sharon Dorsey, $750; (6) Beverly Dudley, $2,500; 
(7) Vanessa and Steven Reed, $1,900; (8) Cleave Drake, $2,000; (9) Ann Myers, 
$1,500; (10) Edna Eubank, $7,000; (11) Jeffrey and Connie Ladesic, $10,000; and 
(12) Sandra Koshover, $3,500. 
{¶ 12} We adopt the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommended sanction and find that the sanction corresponds to a similar 
sanction that we issued in  Disciplinary Counsel v. Bowman, 110 Ohio St.3d 480, 
2006-Ohio-4333, 854 N.E.2d 480.  The respondent in that case was charged with 
three counts of misconduct stemming from neglect and deceit, and   just as the 
respondent here, had no prior disciplinary record and suffered from a depressive 
condition for which he was being treated.  We issued a two-year suspension 
conditioned on respondent’s continued cooperation with OLAP and proof of 
fitness to practice law prior to reinstatement. 
{¶ 13} Respondent is accordingly suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for two years.  Reinstatement will be contingent upon his meeting the 
January Term, 2008 
5 
conditions agreed to by the parties.  With regard to reinstatement, we add the 
requirement that restitution is to be paid in full within one year from the date of 
respondent’s suspension, with interest at the statutory rate from the date of 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to the respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Samuel B. Weiner, Jason M. Dolin, Bruce A. Campbell, and A. Alysha 
Clous, for relator. 
 
Alvin E. Mathews, for respondent. 
______________________