Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Stanley

Citation: 1996-Ohio-271

Docket Number: 19951672

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Stanley. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stanley (1996), ____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Conduct prejudicial 
to the administration of justice -- Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness 
to practice law -- Neglect of an entrusted legal matter -- Failure to timely 
apply for termination of probation -- Failure to cooperate in investigation 
of alleged misconduct -- Failure to register as an attorney. 
 
(No. 95-1672 -- Submitted September 27, 1995 -- Decided January 10, 
1996.) 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-80. 
 
In a complaint filed on December 5, 1994, relator, Office of Disciplinary 
Counsel, charged respondent, Christopher Danahy Stanley of Cleveland, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0034113, with nine counts of professional misconduct, 
involving violations of, inter alia, DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 
practice law), and 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal matter), as well as 
Gov.Bar R. V(9)(D) ( failure to timely apply for termination of probation), 
V(4)(G) (failure to cooperate in investigation of alleged misconduct), and VI 
 
2
(failure to register as an attorney).  Respondent was served notice of the 
complaint, but did not answer.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) heard the matter on 
relator’s motion for default, filed pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V(6)(F). 
 
Evidence submitted in support of the motion for default established with 
respect to Count I that respondent previously received a six-month suspension 
from the practice of law, which was stayed on the condition that he complete a 
two-year monitored probation period.  See Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stanley (1990), 
50 Ohio St.3d 18, 552 N.E.2d 201.  Respondent did not reapply for admission to 
the Ohio Bar as required at the end of his probation. 
 
With respect to Count II, the evidence established that respondent failed to 
supply subpoenaed documents during relator’s investigation, including certain 
monthly banking statements for his attorney trust account.  Respondent also 
refused to answer relator’s questions about his late registration as an attorney and 
whether he had made the restitution ordered in conjunction with his earlier 
misconduct. 
 
With respect to Count III, the evidence established that Elverett James Earl 
Williams retained respondent in the fall of 1992 to challenge Williams’s criminal 
 
3
conviction in federal court.  By January 1993, Williams had paid respondent half 
of their agreed-upon ten thousand dollar fee, which was to include respondent’s 
pursuit of the matter to the United States Supreme Court.  Since January 1993, 
respondent has ignored Williams’s efforts to learn the status of his case and has 
not returned the unearned fees.  Respondent apparently also failed to reply to 
relator’s certified letters of inquiry about Williams’s grievance. 
 
With respect to Count IV, the evidence established that respondent failed to 
register timely as an Ohio attorney or to timely pay his registration fees for four 
out of the last five biennium periods.  Moreover, respondent was not registered at 
all for more than forty months during the years 1985 through 1993, yet he 
continued to practice law in this state.   
 
With respect to Count V, evidence established that Willis Williams, an 
inmate at the Mansfield Correctional Institute, paid respondent five hundred 
dollars in 1993 to assist him in advancing his parole hearing.  Although 
respondent cashed the payment check immediately, he ignored Williams’s 
repeated efforts to learn the status of his case, as well as Williams’s letter 
requesting a refund. 
 
4
 
With respect to CountVI, the evidence established that Jackie Taylor 
retained respondent in 1994 to defend Taylor in a criminal case.  When respondent 
failed to return Taylor’s telephone calls, Taylor was forced to retain other counsel.  
Respondent has not refunded the fees Taylor paid and, apparently, failed to reply 
to relator’s certified letters of inquiry about Taylor’s grievance. 
 
With respect to Count VII, the evidence established that Clarence Kennedy 
paid respondent $2,400 to file a brief in the United States Supreme Court.  
Respondent apparently wrote the brief, but did not file it, and he subsequently 
stopped returning Kennedy’s telephone calls.  Kennedy filed a grievance with the 
Cleveland Bar Association, which transferred Kennedy’s grievance to relator after 
respondent ignored its requests for information.  Respondent evidently did not 
claim relator’s certified letters of inquiry about Kennedy’s grievance. 
 
With respect to Count VIII, the evidence established that David W. Byers 
retained respondent in January 1977 to file a civil rights action on his behalf.  
Respondent filed the suit in June 1977, but failed to prosecute the matter, which 
was dismissed after he did not respond to a motion to dismiss.  Respondent 
subsequently attempted to refile the case, but it was dismissed again due to 
respondent’s failure to file it timely.  In September 1984, respondent signed a note 
 
5
agreeing to repay the one thousand dollars Byers had paid for filing fees, but never 
made the promised payment.  Byers filed a grievance with the Cleveland Bar 
Association, and respondent apparently failed to reply to its letters of inquiry.  The 
Cleveland Bar Association transferred Byers’s grievance to relator, but respondent 
also failed to reply to relator’s certified letters of inquiry about Byers’s complaints. 
 
With respect to Count IX, the evidence established that Leslie Morgan paid 
respondent $2,400 in July 1991, apparently to file at least two appellate briefs.  
Morgan discovered an error in one of the briefs and attempted to contact 
respondent to correct it, but respondent would not return the messages left at his 
home and office.  Morgan filed a grievance against respondent with the Cleveland 
Bar Association, which transferred the case to relator when respondent did not 
reply to its request for information.  Respondent also failed to reply to relator’s 
certified letters of inquiry about Morgan’s grievance. 
 
The panel determined that relator had satisfied the requirements of Gov.Bar 
R. V(6)(F) and granted the motion for default, finding that respondent had 
committed the cited misconduct.  Having no mitigating evidence before it, the 
panel recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred, the sanction 
suggested by relator.  The panel imposed this sanction due to “[r]espondent’s 
 
6
infractions in the current complaint, his prior disciplinary infraction [see Gov.Bar 
R. V(6)(C)], his neglect of his obligations as a lawyer licensed in the State of Ohio 
and his disdain for the disciplinary process.” 
 
The board adopted the panel’s report, including its findings of fact, 
conclusions of law and recommendation for permanent disbarment. 
 
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Per Curiam.  Upon review of the record, we concur in the board’s findings 
that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A) (6), and 6-101(A)(3), as well 
as Gov.Bar R. V(9)(D), V(4)(G), and VI.  We also agree with the sanction 
recommended for this misconduct.  Respondent is therefore permanently disbarred 
from the practice of law in Ohio. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and 
COOK, JJ., concur.