Case Title: Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Haynes

Citation: 2000-Ohio-293

Docket Number: 19991889

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-02-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Haynes, 88 Ohio St.3d 164, 2000-Ohio-293.] 
 
 
 
 
 
LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. HAYNES. 
[Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Haynes (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 164.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Neglect of an entrusted 
legal matter. 
(No. 99-1889 — Submitted December 15, 1999 — Decided February 23, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-86. 
 
On December 7, 1998, relator, Lorain County Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent, John S. Haynes of Elyria, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0005772, with one count of violating a Disciplinary Rule and two 
counts of violating a Rule for the Government of the Bar.  After respondent filed 
an answer, the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) upon the testimony and 
exhibits introduced by the parties. 
 
The panel found that on December 19, 1996, John Mand retained respondent 
to modify a visitation order because Mand’s ex-wife had moved to Michigan with 
their child.  Respondent quoted Mand a flat fee of $350 plus court costs to handle 
the matter, and Mand paid respondent $225 of the quoted fee to retain him.  
Respondent then prepared a draft copy of motions, including motions to modify 
 
 
2
visitation and child support, and sent them to Mand for his review.  On January 27, 
1997, after Mand had approved the draft, respondent filed the motions in the 
Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division.  Respondent 
subsequently talked with Mand’s ex-wife’s attorney, Margaret Kelly, and they 
agreed that the case could be settled. 
 
A hearing on the motions was scheduled for March 19, 1997, but was 
continued until July 16, 1997.  Respondent never notified Mand of either the 
March 19 hearing date or that the hearing scheduled for that date had been 
continued.  Kelly sent respondent a proposed settlement of the case on March 20, 
1997.  Respondent did not respond to the proposal. 
 
After numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact respondent, Mand met with 
respondent on April 14, 1997.  During the meeting, respondent assured Mand that 
he would take care of things and that Mand would be contacted about the case in a 
few weeks.  When Mand heard nothing from respondent and tried unsuccessfully 
to speak with him, Mand advised respondent’s secretary on May 21, 1997, that he 
wanted to fire him.  Respondent then talked to Mand, and Mand demanded a 
refund of the $225 retainer.  Respondent did not return the retainer, and Mand later 
agreed that respondent’s fee for the work he had done was not excessive.  Mand 
retained another attorney, and the case was eventually resolved. 
 
 
3
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct in the Mand matter violated 
DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter).  The panel also concluded 
that relator had not introduced sufficient evidence to establish the other charges 
alleging violations of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary 
proceeding) by the required clear and convincing evidence. 
 
In mitigation, respondent submitted letters from a local judge and a local 
attorney attesting to respondent’s fine reputation and good character in the legal 
community.  Relator conceded that respondent was “not a bad lawyer” and that 
some of his trouble stemmed from respondent’s being too “good-hearted.”  No 
other complaints had ever been brought by relator against respondent. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded.  The 
board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Cook & Batista Co., L.P.A., and Daniel A. Cook, for relator. 
 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, Geoffrey Stern and Christopher J. Weber, for 
respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Given respondent’s solitary act of neglect in an otherwise unblemished 
legal career and the lack of financial harm to his client, a public reprimand is 
 
 
4
warranted.  See Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Smith (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 402, 709 
N.E.2d 116; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Kates (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 69, 676 N.E.2d 
512; Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Tscholl (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 211, 567 N.E.2d 265.  
Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.