Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Gatwood

Citation: 1997-Ohio-96

Docket Number: 19962480

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
Office of Disciplinary Counsel et al. v. Gatwood. 
1 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Gatwood (1997), ___Ohio St.3d __.] 
2 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Engaging 
3 
in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law -- 
4 
Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
5 
misrepresentation -- Neglecting an entrusted legal matter -- 
6 
Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice 
7 
-- Failing to cooperate in a grievance investigation. 
8 
 
(No. 96-2480 -- Submitted January 22, 1997 -- Decided April 30, 
9 
1997.) 
10 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
11 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, Nos. 95-98 and 96-01. 
12 
 
On December 26, 1995, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, one of 
13 
the relators, filed a complaint against respondent, David W. Gatwood of 
14 
Sylvania, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0011513, alleging the violation 
15 
of one Disciplinary Rule.  (case No. 95-98.)  On March 25, 1996, the Toledo 
16 
Bar Association, the other relator, filed a second amended complaint against 
17 
the respondent, alleging the violation of several additional Disciplinary 
18 
Rules. (case No. 96-01.)  All parties stipulated to the factual background of 
19 
these cases.   
20 
 
2
 
With respect to case No. 95-98, the parties stipulated that respondent 
1 
was the subject of a prior disciplinary proceeding in which he was publicly 
2 
reprimanded for failing to timely file an appellate brief for a convicted 
3 
client.  Toledo Bar Assn. v. Gatwood (1988), 36 Ohio St. 3d 610, 522 
4 
N.E.2d 523.  The parties additionally stipulated that in February 1995, 
5 
respondent gave a check to Fallen Timbers Family Physicians that was 
6 
returned for insufficient funds and has not yet been paid, and that by so 
7 
doing respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that 
8 
adversely reflects upon an attorney’s fitness to practice law). 
9 
 
With respect to case No. 96-01, the parties entered into the following 
10 
stipulations.  In 1993, respondent undertook to represent Mr. and Mrs. 
11 
David Koester in connection with injuries sustained by their son in 
12 
Michigan.  Because he was not admitted in Michigan, respondent obtained 
13 
the services of a Michigan lawyer and presented to the Koesters a complaint 
14 
that he asserted had been filed in Michigan.  When the Koesters learned that 
15 
a Michigan attorney was involved, they asked respondent to transfer the 
16 
case to him.  Respondent did so and when the Koesters contacted the 
17 
Michigan attorney they discovered that no complaint had been filed.  
18 
 
3
Respondent’s actions in misleading his clients violated DR 1-102(A)(4) 
1 
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
2 
misrepresentation). 
3 
 
In August 1991, Sherrill and Clyde Adkins retained respondent to 
4 
represent them to pursue claims arising out an injury to Sherrill.  
5 
Respondent filed a complaint on their behalf against various defendants, all 
6 
of whom filed motions to dismiss.  Respondent’s only response was to 
7 
dismiss one of the defendants without prejudice.  The motions of the 
8 
remaining defendants were granted.  Respondent then filed an appeal, which 
9 
was dismissed for failure to file assignments of error and an appeal brief.  
10 
Respondent’s actions violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter 
11 
entrusted to him). 
12 
 
In the fall of 1994, respondent received a retainer to file a bankruptcy 
13 
case for Jean Hernandez, but never filed the case and failed to respond to 
14 
inquiries from the Toledo Bar Association about the grievance Hernandez 
15 
had filed with respect to this matter.  Respondent’s actions violated DR 6 -
16 
101 (A)(3) and 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
17 
 
4
administration of justice), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a 
1 
grievance investigation). 
2 
 
In November 1993, respondent filed a personal injury action for 
3 
Eunice Block, but thereafter failed to respond to interrogatories or attend a 
4 
pretrial conference in the case.  At a hearing on whether the case should be 
5 
dismissed for respondent’s failure to provide discovery, respondent moved 
6 
successfully to dismiss without prejudice with a right to refile.  After 
7 
respondent failed to file the judgment entry on his motion, as requested by 
8 
the court, the court dismissed the case for want of prosecution.  
9 
Respondent’s actions violated DR 6-101(A)(3). 
10 
 
In September 1995, respondent wrote a check for $100 payable to the 
11 
Fulton County Court as deposit on a motion.  When the check was returned 
12 
for insufficient funds and a grievance was filed, respondent failed to 
13 
respond to repeated attempts by the Toledo Bar Association to contact him 
14 
with respect to the grievance.  By his actions, respondent violated DR 1-
15 
102(A)(6) and 1-102(A)(5), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
16 
 
At a hearing before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
17 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”), respondent 
18 
 
5
testified that approximately five years earlier he began to be depressed 
1 
about the practice of law.  In the spring of 1994, respondent consulted with 
2 
a family counselor.  After a few months the counselor suggested that 
3 
respondent  contact Dr Schmidt, a psychiatrist, who diagnosed respondent 
4 
as having chronic depression and prescribed Prozac.  Respondent took the 
5 
medication until November 1994, when he began to feel better.  However, 
6 
after he discontinued the medication his condition worsened.  In April 1995, 
7 
respondent again began seeing his family counselor and has seen him 
8 
weekly since that time.  Concurrently respondent has been taking a new 
9 
medication and believes he has improved his condition. 
10 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
11 
practice of law indefinitely.  As a condition of any possible readmission, the 
12 
panel required that respondent demonstrate that he has continued his 
13 
treatment or that treatment is no longer necessary.  The board adopted the 
14 
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
15 
_______________________________________ 
16 
 
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant 
17 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 
18 
 
6
 
George Gernot III and W. David Arnold, for relator Toledo Bar 
1 
Association. 
2 
 
David W. Gatwood, pro se. 
3 
________________________________________ 
4 
 
Per Curiam.  Upon review of the record, we adopt the findings, 
5 
conclusions, and recommendations of the board.  Respondent is suspended 
6 
indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio.  As a condition of any possible 
7 
reinstatement to the practice of law, respondent must make restitution and 
8 
must demonstrate that he is continuing his treatment for depression or that 
9 
treatment is no longer necessary.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
10 
Judgment accordingly. 
11 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
12 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
13 
 
DOUGLAS, J., not participating. 
14 
 
15