Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Chandler

Citation: 1995-Ohio-126

Docket Number: 19942653

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-04-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     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 v. Chandler.                                           
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Chandler (1995),     Ohio                        
St.3d    .]                                                                      
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Two-year suspension with a                     
     full year of that suspension to be served and thereafter                    
     one year of monitored probation -- Reinstatement                            
     conditioned on full restitution, with interest, to clients                  
     -- Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,                         
     deceit, or misrepresentation -- Inadequate preparation --                   
     Neglect of an entrusted legal matter -- Failure to carry                    
     out contract for professional services.                                     
     (No. 94-2653 -- Submitted January 24,1995 -- Decided April                  
26, 1995.)                                                                       
     On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on                        
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-03.                       
     In an amended  complaint filed on July 8, 1994, relator,                    
Cleveland Bar Association, charged respondent, Everett Alfred                    
Chandler of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0030888,                  
with three counts of misconduct, including violations of DR                      
1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,                    
deceit or misrepresentation), 6-101(A)(2) and (3) (inadequate                    
preparation and neglect of an entrusted legal matter), and                       
7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry out contract for professional                      
services).  Respondent answered, denying all the alleged                         
misconduct, on October 3, 1994, two months late and only four                    
days before the matter was scheduled for hearing before a panel                  
of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of                    
the Supreme Court.  Respondent also filed a motion for a                         
continuance with his answer, but he appeared on the October 7                    
hearing date and indicated to the panel that he was prepared to                  
proceed.                                                                         
     Evidence submitted to prove the allegations in Count I                      
established that Earl and Joyce Smedley retained respondent in                   
December 1989 to avert a threatened foreclosure of their home.                   
The Smedleys paid at least $450 in installments  for respondent                  
to defend them in the foreclosure action and to file a petition                  
for relief in bankruptcy court.  Thereafter, the Smedleys                        
received periodic notices regarding the increasingly imminent                    
foreclosure.  They frequently contacted respondent about these                   
notices,  but he advised them not to worry.  Around August                       
1990, the Smedleys learned that respondent had not filed their                   
bankruptcy petition and that their home had been sold at a                       
sheriff's sale.  Respondent subsequently filed a bankruptcy                      
petition on which he represented the signing date as September                   
6, 1990, even though the Smedleys had signed the petition in                     
December 1989.                                                                   
     With respect to Count II, the evidence established that                     
Richard A. Grant, a builder and home remodeler, paid respondent                  
$1,000 in November 1987 to defend him in an action brought by a                  
subcontractor.  The subcontractor had done some carpentry for                    
Grant, but Grant could not pay the subcontractor because the                     
general contractor of the project had not paid him.   Grant                      
knew of no discovery or other preparation by respondent  before                  
the case went to trial, and respondent presented no                              
witnesses.   Grant lost the case, and judgment was entered                       
against him in the amount of $9,587.50, with interest.                           
     In April 1988, respondent brought suit on Grant's behalf                    
against the homeowners for whom Grant had subcontracted the                      
carpentry work.  The homeowners counterclaimed, but respondent                   
failed to answer.    Respondent also failed to attend a hearing                  
scheduled for October 19, 1988, which took place hours before                    
he filed a motion for continuance of the hearing date.    On                     
November 10, 1988, a default judgment was entered against                        
Grant, and the court stated that it would set a hearing date to                  
determine the amount of damages to which the homeowners were                     
entitled.                                                                        
       Three years later, Grant's claim against the homeowners                   
was still pending in court, and the matter was scheduled again                   
for hearing.  Respondent missed the hearing and again did not                    
file his motion for continuance until after the hearing was                      
over.  Grant finally retained another attorney, who sued                         
respondent for professional negligence and obtained a judgment                   
against him for $17,900.                                                         
     Evidence submitted to prove Count III of the complaint                      
established that  Darrell Eugene Sharp, Sr., engaged respondent                  
in or around May 1991 to represent him in a domestic relations                   
case.  Sharp paid respondent a $350 retainer fee.  However,                      
respondent did not keep Sharp apprised of court dates, and he                    
told Sharp to bring witnesses to a hearing, but did not advise                   
the referee in advance so that the witnesses could testify.                      
     Respondent showed no remorse for his conduct.  He                           
justified his failure to file the Smedleys' bankruptcy petition                  
on the ground that Mr. Smedley owed him legal fees from prior                    
cases.  This, according to respondent, placed the Smedleys in a                  
"hostage situation" and put him "in a position to demand monies                  
for services NOT paid for over the years."  (Capitalization                      
sic.)   Respondent also admitted misrepresenting the date on                     
which the Smedleys signed their bankruptcy petition; he                          
explained that "the bankruptcy court wanted a date within one                    
week from signing to filing the petitions."  In fact,                            
respondent accounted for all the complaints against him in the                   
same way -- they were the product of "persons [who were]                         
unhappy when they [did] not GET THEIR WAY."  (Capitalization                     
sic.)                                                                            
     From this evidence, the panel found that respondent had                     
violated the cited Disciplinary Rules.  Respondent submitted no                  
evidence of good character, and he reproached his former                         
clients and the disciplinary process for suggesting misconduct                   
on his part.  The panel thus found nothing to mitigate  the                      
violations,  and it noted that respondent  had been publicly                     
reprimanded for previous misconduct in Cuyahoga  Cty. Bar Assn.                  
v. Chandler (Feb. 26, 1986), Supreme Court Case No. 85-48,                       
unreported. 1                                                                    
     The majority of the panel recommended that respondent be                    
suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years,                    
with eighteen months suspended, during which time respondent                     
should be under a monitored probation, and that respondent also                  
be ordered to make restitution to the Smedleys in the amount of                  
$450.  The panel chairperson recommended a one-year                              
suspension.  The board adopted the panel's findings of                           
misconduct and the recommendation of the panel majority.                         
                                                                                 
     Calfee, Halter & Griswold and Robert N. Rapp;  Willacy &                    
LoPresti and Keith A. Ganther, for relator.                                      
     Everett Alfred Chandler, pro se.                                            
                                                                                 
     Per Curiam.  We have reviewed the record in this case and                   
concur in the board's findings that respondent violated DR                       
1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A) (2) and (3), and 7-101(A)(2).  However,                    
the board's recommendation that respondent be suspended for a                    
period of two years from the practice of law, with eighteen                      
months stayed, is inappropriate for misconduct of this                           
severity.  We, therefore, impose the recommended two-year                        
suspension from the practice of law in Ohio, but we order that                   
respondent serve a full year of  that suspension period and                      
thereafter be on one year of monitored probation.  Respondent                    
shall also make full restitution to the Smedleys, with interest                  
at the judgment rate, before his reinstatement.  Costs taxed to                  
respondent.                                                                      
                                       Judgment accordingly                      
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and                     
Cook, JJ., concur.                                                               
     Pfeifer, J., dissents and would suspend respondent for                      
eighteen months, but stay the suspension.                                        
                                                                                 
                                                                                 
1.   The previous order provided for respondent's indefinite                     
suspension from the practice of law upon a subsequent finding                    
of misconduct.  Discipline enhancement is now governed by                        
Gov.Bar R. V(6)(C), which provides that prior disciplinary                       
offenses justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be                   
imposed for subsequent misconduct.