Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. King

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. King, 106 Ohio St.3d 102, 2005-Ohio-3955.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. KING. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. King, 
106 Ohio St.3d 102, 2005-Ohio-3955.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Failure to account for client funds — Failure to 
cooperate — Neglecting a legal matter — Engaging in conduct adversely 
reflecting on fitness to practice law — Failure to update address on file 
with Attorney Registration Office — Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2004-2141 — Submitted March 2, 2005 — Decided August 17, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-116. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Michael Leonard King, last known address in 
Independence, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0031364, was admitted to the 
practice of law in Ohio in 1984.  On April 6, 2004, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar 
Association, charged respondent in an amended complaint with violations of the 
Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline heard the cause and made findings of fact, conclusions 
of law, and a recommendation, which the board adopted. 
{¶2} 
Respondent did not appear at the hearing and his whereabouts are 
unknown.  Before he disappeared, however, respondent filed answers to relator’s 
complaints either on his own behalf or through counsel.  He also participated in 
prehearing conferences, the last of which included a postponement of the 
scheduled hearing date to permit respondent to retain new counsel.  Relator later 
attempted to depose respondent, but he did not appear, and relator has since been 
unable to find him. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Misconduct 
{¶3} 
The complaint, as amended, charged seven counts of professional 
misconduct.  Relator withdrew Count I, and the panel unanimously dismissed 
Counts II and III.  The panel also dismissed alleged violations of DR 9-102(A)(2) 
(requiring a lawyer to maintain client funds in a separate, identifiable bank 
account) in Counts VI and VII.  We therefore review the remaining allegations in 
Counts IV through VII. 
Count IV 
{¶4} 
Around September 1, 2000, respondent agreed to represent a client 
in an age-discrimination claim.  On that day, the client paid respondent $1,500 by 
check.  The client thought that respondent had taken the case on a contingent-fee 
basis, entitling respondent to one-third of any award.  The client, however, did not 
receive a written fee agreement confirming that he had paid $1,500 to respondent 
as an advance on expenses or as a retainer fee. 
{¶5} 
Respondent filed an age-discrimination complaint on the client’s 
behalf.  Respondent later discovered that the client had also filed an age-
discrimination claim with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (“OCRC”) before 
filing with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  According 
to undated correspondence from respondent, the terms under which the client filed 
his OCRC claim barred the client from suing in any other forum.  After the 
client’s employer moved for summary judgment, respondent filed a notice of 
dismissal without prejudice, rather than respond. 
{¶6} 
In an October 1, 2001 letter, respondent informed his client that he 
had “pulled back” on the age-discrimination claim “briefly” to explore other 
theories of liability.  The client’s attempts to contact respondent were 
unsuccessful.  Respondent eventually referred the client to another attorney.  
Respondent never provided an accounting for the $1,500 to the client. 
January Term, 2005 
3 
{¶7} 
From the foregoing facts, the board and panel found clear and 
convincing evidence that respondent had violated DR 9-102(B)(3) (requiring a 
lawyer to maintain complete records of and appropriately account for client 
funds). 
 
Count V 
{¶8} 
As to Count V, the panel and board found that respondent had 
failed to cooperate in relator’s investigation of Count IV, a violation of Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G), and had also failed to update his address on file with the Attorney 
Registration Office, a violation of Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(D).  Evidence established 
that respondent replied twice to one investigator’s letters of inquiry, although his 
letters were undated and referred only to a post office box as his address.  Another 
investigator assigned to respondent’s case was unable to contact him at all despite 
repeated efforts.  In June 2003, this investigator specifically notified respondent in 
writing that he had tried to call several times and offered respondent a final 
chance to respond.  Respondent did not reply, and it was clear that he was no 
longer accepting mail at the registration address on file for him. 
Count VI 
{¶9} 
A second client retained respondent to file a personal bankruptcy 
for her, paying his fee of $800 in installments from January 2002 through April 
2002.  The client testified that she thought the bankruptcy would be filed within 
30 days after she paid his fee, but respondent never filed the bankruptcy.  For 
months, the client tried to contact respondent but was able to speak only with his 
secretary.  Respondent’s secretary told the client that the client would receive 
papers in the mail, but the client never did.  After a year during which the client 
repeatedly tried to contact respondent, the client went to his office.  A receptionist 
who worked for another lawyer in the building told the client that they had not 
seen respondent in “a while.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶10} The client filed a grievance against respondent, and respondent 
again failed to cooperate in the ensuing investigation.  Respondent advised the 
investigator that he intended to refund this bankruptcy client’s money; however, 
he did not answer questions about her case.  Sometime after the grievance, the 
client received an $800 money order from respondent with an apology for any 
inconvenience she may have experienced.  The client later hired a new attorney to 
file her bankruptcy claim. 
{¶11} From the foregoing facts, the panel and board found clear and 
convincing evidence that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from neglecting a legal matter) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count VII 
{¶12} A third client retained respondent to administer the estate of her 
aunt, who died in 2002.  Respondent opened the estate in November of that year 
in the Cuyahoga County Probate Court, paying $200 in court costs with his own 
money.  His $200 check was returned for insufficient funds, and this amount was 
later paid by the estate.  Respondent later paid himself $5,000 from the estate 
assets without having the approval of the court, the beneficiaries, or his client. 
{¶13} Respondent eventually stopped returning his client’s calls about 
the estate, and she reported this problem to the probate court.  The probate court 
administrator advised her to obtain new counsel, which she did.  The new attorney 
for the estate also attempted to contact respondent, but by then respondent’s 
telephone had been disconnected.  Respondent also did not respond to the new 
attorney’s letters asking for respondent’s return of $5,200 to the estate. 
{¶14} In February 2003, the successor attorney filed a grievance against 
respondent.  After relator’s investigator contacted him, respondent sent back an 
undated letter advising that he was forwarding a bank check for $5,200 to the new 
attorney for the aunt’s estate.  Respondent did not, however, answer the 
investigator’s questions about his representation of the estate.  Another 
January Term, 2005 
5 
investigator later searched for respondent but could not determine his 
whereabouts. 
{¶15} From the foregoing facts, the panel and board found clear and 
convincing evidence that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (barring 
conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) 
and VI(1)(D). 
Sanction 
{¶16} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel and 
board considered the mitigating and aggravating factors of respondent’s case.  See 
Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Complaints and Hearings 
Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD 
Proc.Reg.”).  In mitigation, both found that respondent had no record of prior 
discipline and that he had fully reimbursed the estate in Count VII.  The panel and 
board found that respondent had also returned $800 to the client in Count VI.  
Moreover, in September 2003, respondent had voluntarily contacted the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) for help.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), 
(c), and (g). 
{¶17} After behavioral screening, Paul A. Caimi, the OLAP associate 
director, determined that respondent would benefit from the OLAP program.  At 
the panel hearing, Caimi testified that respondent had been diagnosed with 
dysthymia, a low-level depression.  On September 26, 2003, respondent entered 
into an OLAP contract providing for treatment of his condition. 
{¶18} Respondent agreed to have Caimi monitor his progress.  
Respondent cooperated at first, but later, Caimi lost contact with him.  Caimi 
testified that despite his efforts, he had not spoken with respondent since February 
2004.  Caimi also testified that he believed that respondent had lost a family 
member, perhaps a parent, sometime in the months before he contacted OLAP. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶19} As aggravating conduct, the board found that respondent had not 
cooperated in the investigations of his misconduct and had not made restitution to 
the client in Count IV.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e) and (i). 
{¶20} Relator advocated an indefinite suspension.  In his answer to the 
amended complaint, respondent had asked that relator’s complaint be dismissed.  
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law, and the board adopted that recommendation.  The panel and board 
further recommended that, in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(10) 
for petitions for reinstatement, respondent be required to show that he has 
successfully fulfilled the terms of his OLAP contract and has repaid $1,500 to the 
client in Count IV. 
{¶21} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 
and 9-102(B)(3) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and VI(1)(D), as found by the board.  
Moreover, because we ordinarily impose an indefinite suspension for neglect and 
the failure to cooperate, Disciplinary Counsel v. Treneff, 104 Ohio St.3d 336, 
2004-Ohio-6562, 819 N.E.2d 695, ¶ 16, we also accept the board’s 
recommendation. 
{¶22} Respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio.  Upon any petition for reinstatement he files, respondent shall be required 
to show, in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(10), that he has 
successfully fulfilled the terms of his OLAP contract and has repaid $1,500 to the 
client in Count IV.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Ellen Mandell, Bar Counsel; McDonald Hopkins Co., L.P.A., and Steven 
L. Gardner; and Blaise Giusto, for relator. 
January Term, 2005