Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Kelley

Citation: 1994-Ohio-77

Docket Number: 19940895

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1994-12-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
                                                                                 
              **** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING ****                               
                                                                                 
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
Cleveland Bar Association et al. v. Kelley.                                      
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Kelley (1994),       Ohio                        
St.3d        .]                                                                  
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Two-year suspension with one                   
     year held in abeyance with attorney placed on probation                     
     during that year with conditions -- Conduct prejudicial to                  
     the administration of justice -- Improper division of fees                  
     without client's consent -- Handling legal matter without                   
     adequate preparation -- Neglect of an entrusted legal                       
     matter -- Failure to carry out contract of employment.                      
     (No. 94-895 -- Submitted October 25, 1994 -- Decided                        
December 14, 1994.)                                                              
     On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on                        
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 92-35.                       
     In a complaint filed on June 22, 1992, relators, Cleveland                  
Bar Association and the Cuyahoga County Bar Association,                         
charged respondent Elliott Ray Kelley of Cleveland, Ohio,                        
Attorney Registration No. 0009587, with seven counts of                          
disciplinary violations.  However, relators subsequently                         
withdrew Count Three.  In his initial and amended answers,                       
respondent admitted many facts alleged in the complaint,                         
disputed others, and added explanations.                                         
     On June 4, and September 28, 1993, a panel of the Board of                  
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court                  
("board") held hearings on the matter.  The complaint, answer,                   
stipulations, and evidence at the hearings established that                      
respondent failed, as charged in Count One, to comply with                       
several orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court.  That                      
court's orders in 1989 through 1991 required respondent to take                  
specifically named steps to bring his caseload current.  The                     
bankruptcy court further restricted the number of Chapter 13                     
cases respondent could file each month, but respondent exceeded                  
those limits.  Respondent also circumvented bankruptcy court                     
orders by having another attorney file cases for him.                            
     As charged in Count Two, respondent undertook to represent                  
upon appeal a man convicted of rape, and that conviction was                     
affirmed by the court of appeals.  Respondent then filed a                       
notice of appeal before the Ohio Supreme Court, but failed to                    
pursue that appeal or withdraw from representation.  That                        
appeal was dismissed for lack of prosecution.  In Count Six,                     
respondent filed on behalf of his client an assault complaint                    
against a city and its building commissioner.  Thereafter,                       
respondent failed to respond to the opposition's summary                         
judgment motion, and judgment was entered against his client.                    
     Counts Four, Five and Seven all concern respondent's                        
representation of clients in Chapter XIII bankruptcy                             
proceedings.  Respondent's client in Count Four fell behind in                   
payments on a land contract, but respondent failed to take                       
available measures to protect his client's substantial equity                    
rights under that contract.  In Count Five, respondent's                         
inaction in handling his client's bankruptcy proceedings caused                  
the dismissal of her case and the repossession of her                            
automobile.  In Count Seven, respondent had another attorney                     
file his client's Chapter XIII case without his client's                         
knowledge.  Thus, respondent had violated bankruptcy court                       
orders restricting respondent's practice.                                        
     The panel concluded that respondent's conduct in Counts                     
One and Seven had violated DR 1-102(A)(5)(conduct prejudicial                    
to the administration of justice).  Also, respondent's conduct                   
in Count One demonstrated an improper division of fees without                   
his client's consent in violation of DR 2-107(A)(2).                             
Respondent's conduct in Counts One, Four, and Five had violated                  
DR 6-101(A)(2)(handling a legal matter without preparation                       
adequate in the circumstances).  Additionally, his conduct in                    
Counts One, Two, Four, Five, and Six violated DR 6-101(A)(3)                     
(neglect of an entrusted legal matter).  As to Count Five,                       
respondent had also violated DR 7-101(A)(2)(failing to carry                     
out a contract of employment).  However, the panel found                         
insufficient evidence to demonstrate a violation of former                       
Gov.Bar R. V (5)(a)(now Gov. R.V[4][G](failure to cooperate in                   
investigation).                                                                  
     The panel believed respondent "was a well meaning person"                   
who undertook to represent those "who would otherwise find it                    
difficult to obtain representation except through publicly                       
funded" sources.  Although respondent had practiced law for                      
over thirty years, he had undertaken "a workload which was                       
impossible for him to properly manage."  Yet, when ordered by                    
the bankruptcy court to limit his filings, respondent did not                    
comply with this order.  The panel recommended that respondent                   
be suspended from the practice of law for two years, that he                     
actually serve six months of that penalty, and that he be                        
placed on probation for the remaining eighteen months, on the                    
conditions that one of the relators closely  monitor                             
respondent's probation, that he have no probation violation                      
during this period of time, and that respondent obtain CLE                       
credits in law office management and debtor practice during his                  
suspension and probation.                                                        
     The board adopted the panel's findings of fact and                          
conclusions of law.  Because of the number of disciplinary                       
violations, however, the board recommended that only one year                    
of a two-year suspension be suspended with respondent being                      
placed on probation for that year on the conditions recommended                  
by the panel.                                                                    
                                                                                 
     Stanley E. Stein, Edward J. Maher and Michael J. Honohan,                   
for relators.                                                                    
     Elliott R. Kelley, pro se.                                                  
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  We concur with the board's findings,                           
conclusions and recommendations.  Accordingly respondent is                      
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, but                    
one year of that suspension is held in abeyance, and respondent                  
will be placed on probation during that year upon the                            
conditions recommended by the board.  Costs taxed to respondent.                 
                                    Judgment accordingly.                        
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.                   
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.