Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Scurry

Citation: 1996-Ohio-268

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-07-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SCURRY. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Scurry (1996), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with sanction stayed on 
conditions — Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — 
Neglecting an entrusted legal matter — Conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice. 
(No. 96-525 — Submitted April 15, 1996 — Decided July 24, 1996.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-42. 
 
In an amended complaint filed September 20, 1995, relator, Office of 
Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent, Fred L. Scurry of London, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0021256, in five counts, with five violations of DR 1-
102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law); violations of 
DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted), and one violation of DR 1-
102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).  Respondent 
acknowledged that he suffered from a persistent substance-abuse problem which 
has hindered him both personally and professionally. 
 
The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) on December 7, 1995, 
upon agreed stipulations of fact and other evidence wherein respondent, except as 
to Count I, admitted that his conduct violated the Disciplinary Rules. 
 
As to Count I, in February 1993, respondent was retained to represent Bruce 
Rafferty, defendant, in a Madison County Municipal Court matter seeking 
restitution of real property which was subsequently transferred to the court of 
common pleas.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Rafferty on 
November 15, 1993, and the trial judge ordered respondent to file an answer by 
 
2
December 14, 1993 or his client would stand in default.  Respondent not only 
failed to file an answer, but apparently also failed to request an extension or 
communicate with the court.  A default judgment was entered against Rafferty on 
December 22, 1993. 
 
As to Count II, respondent was hired in 1993 by Tom Smith to defend a 
breach of contract lawsuit alleging $3,500 in damages.  When respondent failed to 
file an answer, a default judgment was entered against Smith.  The trial court set 
aside the default judgment upon respondent’s Civ. R. 60(B) motion.  However, 
when the plaintiff appealed the set-aside order, respondent failed to timely file a 
responsive brief.  Subsequently, respondent filed a motion for additional time to 
file a brief attributing his negligent representation to his alcoholism, but asserting 
that he was in a state of recovery. 
 
With respect to Count III, on January 17, 1995, London, Ohio police 
officers detected a strong odor of alcohol on respondent when answering a 
domestic violence call from respondent’s home.  On February 6, 1995, respondent 
pled no contest to a charge of domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25), whereupon he 
was fined, given a suspended jail sentence, placed on probation, and ordered to 
refrain from using alcohol.  On or about July 31, 1995, because of his persistent 
use of intoxicating substances, respondent was found to be in violation of the 
terms of his probation. 
 
As to Count IV, on August 24, 1995, a jury found respondent guilty of 
operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.  Respondent 
was thereafter fined, given a jail sentence, most of which was suspended, and had 
his driver’s license suspended. 
 
With respect to Count V, on May 6, 1995, London police found respondent 
next to his vehicle, which had struck two other vehicles, a bicycle, and a picnic 
 
3
table.  Respondent tested .325 on a breath-alcohol test and subsequently was found 
guilty of OMVI.  Respondent was fined, given a jail sentence, most of which was 
suspended, and had his driver’s license suspended.  
 
In mitigation, respondent admitted to his alcoholism and informed the panel 
that he now attends weekly Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent had violated the Disciplinary Rules as 
charged, except for DR 1-102(A)(6) of Count I, and agreed with relator’s proposed 
sanction that he be suspended for one year with the entire time stayed, and that he 
be placed on probation for two years under the conditions that during the 
probationary period respondent (1) sign an Advocacy Contract with the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program, Inc.; (2) refrain from the use of alcohol; (3) be 
subjected to random urinalysis testing; and (4) attend a minimum of three 
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings per week. 
 
The board adopted the panel’s report, including the findings of fact, 
conclusions of law and recommendation, and further recommended that the costs 
of the proceedings be taxed to the respondent. 
___________________ 
 
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Alvin E. Mathews, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Fred L. Scurry, pro se. 
___________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  This court adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
board.  Clearly, respondent’s alcoholism has caused him to neglect his duties to 
his clients and has adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law.  However, we 
recognize, as did the board, that respondent has taken measures to resolve his 
problems. 
 
4
 
Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year, with 
the entire time stayed, provided that respondent adhere to the conditions of his 
two-year probation as set forth by the board.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly.  
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
STRATTON, JJ., concur.