Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Demore-Ford

Citation: 2001-Ohio-1590

Docket Number: 20010747

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-10-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Demore-Ford, 93 Ohio St.3d 417, 2001-Ohio-1590] 
 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. DEMORE-FORD. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Demore-Ford (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 417.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Engaging in conduct 
reflecting on fitness to practice law – Neglect of an entrusted legal 
matter — Failing to seek lawful objectives of client — Failing to carry 
out contract of employment — Failing to promptly pay or deliver to 
client funds which client is entitled to receive — Failing to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 01-747 — Submitted July 17, 2001 — Decided October 3, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-73. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On August 29, 1997, Quinten L. Johnson hired respondent, 
Evette Demore-Ford of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0041338, to 
represent him in a domestic relations matter.  Johnson paid respondent $500 as a 
retainer and $150 for filing fees.  Respondent failed to act on this matter despite 
Johnson’s telephone calls, and Johnson filed a grievance with relator, Cleveland 
Bar Association, on January 14, 1998.  In September 1999, after Johnson and 
relator had sent correspondence to respondent, she returned the $650 to Johnson.  
However, an earlier check to pay Johnson was a bank check with money drawn 
from an account that respondent held jointly with an unnamed individual in the 
Greater Cleveland Firefighters Credit Union, Inc., apparently respondent’s 
personal credit union account.  Johnson never received this earlier check.  The 
credit union later notified respondent that the check was stale and, at the apparent 
request of respondent, replaced the stale check with the check issued in 
September. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Relator filed a complaint against respondent on August 14, 2000, charging 
respondent with violations of the Disciplinary Rules as to the Johnson matter and 
for failure to cooperate with relator’s investigation.  Respondent did not file an 
answer, and relator obtained a default judgment against respondent.  During the 
course of this investigation, respondent provided false and misleading information 
to relator and did not cooperate fully with relator, failing to communicate with 
relator after relator filed the complaint. 
 
A Master Commissioner of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio (“board”) concluded that respondent 
had violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting legal matter entrusted to 
counsel), 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek lawful objectives of client through 
reasonably available means), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out contract of 
employment), 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay or deliver to client as 
requested funds in possession of lawyer which client is entitled to receive), and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4) (failing to cooperate in investigation of disciplinary matter). 
 
In mitigation, the Master Commissioner determined that respondent had 
no prior disciplinary record and did not display a pattern of conduct similar to the 
conduct complained about.  Moreover, Johnson, the complaining client, received 
full restitution. 
 
Despite these mitigating factors, the Master Commissioner recommended 
that we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law.  The Master 
Commissioner reasoned that respondent had demonstrated a negative attitude to 
the disciplinary process by her responses to the investigation and the filing of the 
complaint, by her significant delay in returning Johnson’s retainer, and by her 
apparent commingling of an unearned retainer with her personal funds. 
 
The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommendation of the Master Commissioner. 
January Term, 2001 
3 
 
We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board.  
We hereby indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law.  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I dissent from the majority’s 
imposition of an indefinite suspension. 
 
We usually reserve the sanction of indefinite suspension for a pattern of 
alleged neglect or behavior that harms several clients.  Here, we have only one 
victim of neglect and a reimbursement check that was somehow lost in the system 
with no blame laid on respondent for that loss.  Furthermore, the check was 
replaced once it was determined that the check had been lost.  These actions 
clearly do not demonstrate a pattern of neglect.  Respondent’s real transgression 
is failing to cooperate in the disciplinary action. 
 
When we compare these facts to the many egregious cases before us for 
which we give an indefinite suspension, they fall short of the conduct we often 
see.  I do not mean to minimize respondent’s actions or her commingling of 
funds, but I do not believe that this isolated incident justifies the harsh response of 
indefinite suspension. 
 
I would instead suspend respondent from the practice of law for one year 
with six months stayed on the condition that respondent set up a proper trust 
account if she does not already have one and that she have no further violations. 
 
Therefore, I respectfully dissent. 
 
DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Matthew P. Moriarty, Richard Scislowski and Kenneth A. Bravo, for 
relator. 
__________________