Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Lentes

Citation: 2008-Ohio-6355

Docket Number: 20081709

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-12-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lentes, 120 Ohio St.3d 431, 2008-Ohio-6355.] 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LENTES. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Lentes, 120 Ohio St.3d 431, 2008-Ohio-6355.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation — Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 
practice law — Neglecting entrusted legal matter — Failing to provide 
competent representation to client — Failing to act with reasonable 
diligence in representing a client — Failing to cooperate in a disciplinary 
investigation — Permanent disbarment. 
(No. 2008-1709 – Submitted November 18, 2008 – Decided December 11, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No.  08-009. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, John Robert Lentes of Gallipolis, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0029906, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1985.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
permanently disbar respondent, based on findings that he systematically deceived 
clients through lies about fictitious complaints, hearings, and other legal 
proceedings, in one case even fabricating a judgment entry, and also disregarded 
efforts to investigate this misconduct. We find that respondent committed these 
unconscionable acts, that he thereby flagrantly violated standards of professional 
ethics, and that his disbarment is warranted. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent in a six-count 
complaint with violations of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring cooperation in a 
disciplinary investigation), the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Responsibility, and the Rules of Professional Conduct.1  Respondent was served 
with notice of the complaint but did not answer, and relator moved for default.  
See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master commissioner appointed by the board granted 
the motion, making findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation 
for permanent disbarment.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s 
findings of misconduct and recommendation to disbar. 
{¶ 3} In objecting to the board’s report, respondent attempted to argue 
factors in mitigation of his misconduct.  The objections are overruled. 
{¶ 4} We have previously rejected a respondent’s attempt to introduce 
evidence in the first instance in the respondent’s objections to the board’s report 
and during oral argument to show cause why we should not adopt the board’s 
report.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Sterner (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 164, 672 N.E.2d 
633.  In Sterner, we held that Gov.Bar R. V, which sets forth procedure in the 
disciplinary process and affords the opportunity for a formal evidentiary hearing 
before a panel of the board, “has no provision for the introduction of evidence in 
the brief filed in this court or in the oral argument to this court” and that “[o]nly in 
the most exceptional circumstances would we accept additional evidence at that 
late stage of the proceedings.”  Id. at 167-168, 672 N.E.2d 633.  Accord Columbus 
Bar Assn. v. Finneran (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 428, 687 N.E.2d 405.  No 
exceptional circumstances are present in this case. 
{¶ 5} In addition to arguing mitigation during oral argument, respondent 
asked for the opportunity to submit a resignation from the practice of law within 
90 days. At this late stage of the proceedings, respondent has forfeited that 
opportunity. 
                                                 
1.  Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before 
and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 
supersede the Code of Professional Responsibility.  In specifying both the former and current rules 
for the same acts, the allegations comprise a single ethical violation.  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31, fn. 1. 
January Term, 2008 
3 
{¶ 6} Gov.Bar R. VI(6)(C) permits lawyers who are the subject of 
disciplinary proceedings to resign from the practice of law with the designation 
“resigned with disciplinary action pending.”  This rule does not exist to allow 
lawyers to exhaust the participants and procedures of the disciplinary system in 
hope of ultimately evading the recommended sanction.  Lawyers resorting to 
resignation during disciplinary proceedings should therefore resign at the 
beginning of the proceedings.  This immediately removes the lawyer from the 
practice of law, thereby protecting the public and sparing the disciplinary process 
the time and expense of the proceedings. Rarely will this court accept a 
resignation tendered at the end of the proceedings, when the benefit to the public 
and the disciplinary process no longer remains.  See Akron Bar Assn. v. Holder, 
112 Ohio St.3d 90, 2006-Ohio-6506, 858 N.E.2d 356. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 7} Respondent violated ethical standards while purporting to 
represent clients in three separate legal actions and in then failing to respond 
during the investigation of the ensuing grievances. 
Count I — The Garretson Grievance 
{¶ 8} Greg Garretson retained respondent in November 2004 to represent 
him in a dispute with a Harley Davidson dealership over repairs on a motorcycle.  
Respondent promised to file a lawsuit, advising Garretson that he would recover 
his legal fees through the litigation.  Respondent had no success negotiating 
informally to resolve the dispute with the dealership but never filed suit.  He 
instead misled Garretson, falsely telling his client on a number of occasions that 
he had filed a complaint against the dealership in the Gallia County Court of 
Common Pleas. 
{¶ 9} In fact, respondent did little but lie to Garretson.  In mid-March 
2006, respondent had Garretson meet him for a fictitious hearing at the common 
pleas court.  He kept Garretson waiting outside the courtroom and then told his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
client that he needed to hire a mechanic as an expert, which was not true.  
Garretson, acting on respondent’s false representation, hired an expert, who 
examined the motorcycle at the dealership, and Garretson gave the expert’s report 
to respondent, all for nothing. 
{¶ 10} Respondent then continued the ruse.  He met with Garretson in 
June, August, and November 2006, feigning during each conference that 
proceedings were ongoing in Garretson’s court case.  In early January 2007, 
respondent met with Garretson specifically to prepare him for a trial that 
respondent falsely said had been scheduled for January 8, 2007.  On the supposed 
trial date, respondent again had Garretson come to court and wait outside while 
the common pleas judge supposedly conducted proceedings.  When respondent 
returned, he falsely told Garretson that representatives for the dealership had not 
appeared and that the judge would soon enter judgment in Garretson’s favor. 
{¶ 11} 
During another meeting in early March 2007, respondent falsely 
told Garretson that he had sent a letter on the court’s behalf to the dealership, 
directing the dealership to deliver the motorcycle to respondent’s office within 30 
days.  When the deadline expired, respondent called Garretson and made up a 
reason to explain why the delivery would not occur.  Garretson then offered to 
accept the value of the motorcycle in place of delivery.  In response, respondent 
falsely represented that he would arrange with the judge for Garretson to receive a 
check within one week. 
{¶ 12} 
Within that week, respondent presented Garretson with a 
judgment entry purporting to be a ruling in Garretson’s favor.  Respondent 
fabricated the entry and forged the signature of Gallia County Common Court 
Judge D. Dean Evans.  Garretson learned of the fabrication and forgery in early 
May 2007, when he checked with the common pleas court and was told that 
respondent had never filed any complaint on his behalf. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
{¶ 13} 
Clear and convincing evidence shows that from March 2006 to 
May 2007, respondent deceived Garretson as to the status of his case, including 
the fabrication and forgery of a court order.  Respondent thereby violated (1) 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and its predecessor, DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); (2) Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) 
and its predecessor, DR l-102(A)(5) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice); and (3) Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) and its predecessor, DR 1-
102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law).  Through his failure to represent Garretson with any semblance of 
professional competence and diligence, respondent also violated (1) Prof.Cond.R. 
1.1 (a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client, meaning that the 
lawyer must apply the knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably 
necessary for the representation) and (2) Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with 
reasonable diligence in representing a client) and its predecessor DR 6-101(A)(3) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter). 
Count II – Investigation of the Garretson Grievance 
{¶ 14} Upon learning that respondent had forged his signature, Judge 
Evans filed a grievance against him.  Relator sent certified letters of inquiry 
concerning the Garretson grievance to respondent at the address of his law office 
in May and June 2007.  Respondent’s secretary signed the certified receipts and 
reported the delivery of the letters to respondent, but he did not reply.  Later that 
June, relator subpoenaed respondent to appear for his deposition on August 7, 
2007.  Respondent canceled on the day of the deposition.  Respondent later 
appeared for his deposition on September 20, 2007, and at that time admitted 
under oath to virtually all the misconduct alleged in the Garretson grievance. 
{¶ 15} Clear and convincing evidence shows that respondent paid no 
attention to relator’s letters of inquiry and waited until the last minute to cancel a 
deposition that relator had scheduled, even though he had been given reasonable 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
notice.  Respondent thereby violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  His dismissive 
reaction toward the disciplinary system also reflected adversely on his fitness to 
practice law, constituting a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 
Count III – The Searles Grievance 
{¶ 16} Jerry and Wanda Searles retained respondent in September 2005 
to file an action in the Meigs County Probate Court for the adoption of their 
teenage grandson, paying $500 in legal fees and $250 for court costs.  In 
November 2005, respondent’s secretary advised the Searleses that respondent had 
filed the adoption petition.  Respondent did not actually file the adoption petition 
until August 1, 2006. 
{¶ 17} 
In January 2006, Wanda Searles began calling respondent’s 
office to obtain an update on the status of the adoption.  She left numerous 
messages, but respondent did not return her calls.  When they still had no news by 
May 2006, the Searleses went to respondent’s office in an unscheduled visit.  
Respondent was not in the office at the time, and the Searleses decided to wait for 
his return.  When he returned several hours later, respondent met with the couple 
and falsely reported that the probate court had scheduled a hearing on their 
adoption petition for May 19, 2006. 
{¶ 18} The Searleses appeared on the appointed date in probate court.  
Respondent did not.  The Searleses learned from court personnel that the hearing 
had not been scheduled. 
{¶ 19} 
After this experience, Wanda Searles started calling respondent 
again, this time leaving messages asking him to return the couple’s $500 so that 
they could hire another lawyer.  Respondent did not reply or honor this request.  
Respondent instead remained on the case, finally filing the adoption petition and 
then having the probate court schedule a hearing in the case for early December 
2006.  That hearing was canceled; another hearing scheduled in August 2007 did 
not go forward because respondent failed to serve the grandson’s biological 
January Term, 2008 
7 
mother with notice of the proceedings, even after the Searles had provided the 
address of the mother to respondent. 
{¶ 20} The Searleses attended the August 2007 hearing and were led by 
respondent to believe that the adoption was progressing and almost complete.  In 
February of that year, however, the Searleses had filed a grievance against 
respondent for his inaction up until that time, and after the August hearing, 
respondent mailed a check to the Searleses for a refund of legal fees.  The check 
was dishonored, and the Searleses were assessed $203 in overdraft charges.  
Respondent’s check for unexpended court costs was also dishonored, costing the 
Searleses $32 more in bank fees. 
{¶ 21} 
Respondent has not reimbursed the Searleses for the cost of his 
dishonored checks.  The Searleses, who had hoped that their grandson would be 
able to draw social security benefits on their claim to put toward his college 
tuition, were never able to complete the adoption.  The grandson has since turned 
18. 
{¶ 22} 
Clear and convincing evidence shows that from November 2005 
to August 2007, respondent failed to represent the Searleses with professional 
competence and diligence and also misled them about the pendency of their 
adoption case.  Respondent thereby violated (1) Prof.Cond.R. 1.1; (2) 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and its predecessor, DR 6-101(A)(3); (3) Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) 
and its predecessor, DR 1-102(A)(4); (4) Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and its predecessor, 
DR l-102(A)(5); and (5) Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) and its predecessor, DR 1-
102(A)(6). 
Count IV — Investigation of the Searles Grievance 
{¶ 23} Relator sent respondent two certified letters of inquiry concerning 
the Searles grievance, one in April and another in May 2007.  Respondent did not 
claim the first certified letter, and relator’s investigator later spoke with 
respondent and sent a copy to him by facsimile.  Respondent’s secretary signed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
for the second letter.  Respondent did not reply to any of relator’s 
communications. 
{¶ 24} In June 2007, relator subpoenaed respondent for a deposition to 
answer questions on August 7, 2007, about both the Garretson and Searles 
grievances.  As already recounted, respondent canceled on the day of the 
deposition.  In his request to reschedule the deposition, respondent promised to 
provide a written response to the grievances, including an explanation why he had 
delayed filing the Searleses’ adoption petition.  Respondent never did provide his 
written response, even after relator sent a letter renewing the request for this 
information. 
{¶ 25} Again, clear and convincing evidence shows that respondent paid 
no attention to relator’s letters of inquiry and waited until the last minute to cancel 
the deposition that relator had scheduled.  Respondent also failed to abide by his 
promise to explain his delay in filing the Searleses’ adoption petition.  
Respondent thereby violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  His cavalier reaction toward 
the disciplinary system also reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law, 
constituting a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 
Count V – The Marcum Grievance 
{¶ 26} 
Ida Marcum hired respondent in October 2006 to obtain a court 
order allowing an easement to her land through an adjacent landowner’s property.  
Marcum paid respondent $500 in legal fees, and he agreed to file a lawsuit on her 
behalf.  Respondent told Marcum that he had filed her lawsuit in the Gallia 
County Court of Common Pleas.  He never did. 
{¶ 27} Respondent then misled Marcum through yet another series of 
untruths.  In the fall of 2007, he accompanied Marcum to Judge Evans’s 
courtroom for yet another hearing that had never been scheduled.  Again, 
respondent had his client wait outside the courtroom while he supposedly 
attended the hearing.  When respondent returned, he falsely reported to Marcum 
January Term, 2008 
9 
that the hearing had been continued because the defendant needed to obtain new 
counsel. 
{¶ 28} 
Respondent instructed his client to be present for two more 
fictional hearings in January and February 2008.  Respondent had Marcum wait 
outside the courtroom during the first “hearing” and then falsely advised her that 
Judge Evans had decided to grant her access to her property through an easement 
across the property of the adjacent landowner.  In anticipation of the second 
“hearing,” respondent falsely advised Marcum that the judge would determine 
whether to require the adjacent landowner to tear down a garage located partially 
on Marcum’s property. 
{¶ 29} 
When Marcum appeared for the fictitious February hearing, she 
learned that the court was closed because of a funeral.  Before leaving the 
courthouse, Marcum spoke with a court employee who advised her that no one 
had filed an action on her behalf and thus no hearing had been scheduled in the 
case for that day.  Respondent later falsely told Marcum that the hearing had not 
gone forward because the defendant had filed an appeal. 
{¶ 30} Clear and convincing evidence shows that from October 2006 to 
February 2008, respondent failed to represent Marcum with professional 
competence and diligence and also misled her repeatedly about the pendency of 
her case.  Respondent thereby violated (1) Prof.Cond.R. 1.1; (2) Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 
and its predecessor, DR 6-101(A)(3); (3) Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and its predecessor, 
DR 1-102(A)(4); (4) Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and its predecessor, DR l-102(A)(5); 
and (5) Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) and its predecessor, DR 1-102(A)(6). 
Count VI — Investigation of the Marcum Grievance 
{¶ 31} 
In February 2008, relator personally served respondent at his 
law office with a letter of inquiry regarding the Marcum grievance.  Respondent 
did not respond.  In March 2008, relator sent a second letter of inquiry by certified 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
mail.  Respondent’s secretary signed the return receipt, but respondent again did 
not reply. 
{¶ 32} 
Clear and convincing evidence again shows that respondent paid 
no attention to relator’s letters of inquiry.  Respondent thereby violated Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G).  His cavalier reaction toward the disciplinary system also reflected 
adversely on his fitness to practice law, constituting a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(h). 
Sanction 
{¶ 33} 
Disbarment is the only appropriate sanction for respondent’s 
multiple acts of dishonesty and his callous disregard of responsibility to his 
clients, the judicial system, and the legal profession.  Our admonishment in 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Smith, 115 Ohio St.3d 95, 2007-Ohio-4270, 873 
N.E.2d 1224, in which we disbarred another lawyer for similar manifest ethical 
misconduct, applies with equal force here: 
{¶ 34} “Respondent’s dishonesty in his law practice, his lack of 
cooperation in the disciplinary process, and his repeated neglect of his clients’ 
legal matters demonstrate that he is not fit to practice law. Attorneys must comply 
with the ethical requirements imposed by the Code of Professional Responsibility 
and the Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent has demonstrated time and 
again his unwillingness or inability to do so.”  Id. at ¶ 49. 
{¶ 35} 
We therefore permanently disbar respondent from the practice of 
law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O'DONNELL, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
LANZINGER, J., concurs in judgment only. 
PFEIFER, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2008 
11 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 
 
{¶ 36} John Lentes has offered to resign from the bar of Ohio.  I would 
accept his resignation.  In the alternative, the proper sanction in this case is an 
indefinite suspension, as was recommended by the Disciplinary Counsel.  I 
dissent. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
John R. Lentes, pro se. 
______________________