Title: Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cornett

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cornett, 109 Ohio St.3d 347, 2006-Ohio-2575.] 
 
 
BUTLER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. CORNETT. 
[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cornett,  
109 Ohio St.3d 347, 2006-Ohio-2575.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Failure to cooperate with 
disciplinary investigation — Motion for default for failure to answer — 
Neglecting an entrusted legal matter — Intentionally failing to carry out 
contract of employment — Engaging in conduct prejudicial to 
administration of justice — Handling a legal matter without adequate 
preparation — Conduct that prejudices or damages a client — Failure to 
promptly return funds belonging to client — Unsupported allegations 
dismissed. 
(No. 2004-2078 — Submitted February 8, 2006 — Decided June 7, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-96. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Candie Lynn Cornett of Hamilton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0059489, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1992.  On June 7, 
2004, relator, Butler County Bar Association, charged respondent in an amended 
complaint with multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  
Attempts to serve respondent were unsuccessful, and the complaint was served on 
the Clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Apparently, 
respondent was aware of client grievances against her and relator’s investigation, 
but did not answer.  Relator moved for default under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). 
{¶ 2} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline granted the motion for default.  The master 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
commissioner found misconduct in connection with all 22 counts of the complaint 
and recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred.  The board adopted 
the master commissioner’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommendation. 
{¶ 3} After reviewing the board’s report, we remanded the case to the 
board for evidence and findings in accordance with Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 
104 Ohio St.3d 448, 2004-Ohio-6560, 820 N.E.2d 318.  Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Cornett, 106 Ohio St.3d 1418, 2005-Ohio-3322, 830 N.E.2d 349.  As we 
explained in Sebree, “A motion for default in a disciplinary proceeding supported 
only by summary, conclusory, and hearsay-filled affidavits is not supported by the 
prima facie evidence of misconduct required by Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).”  Sebree, 
104 Ohio St.3d 448, 2004-Ohio-6560, 820 N.E.2d 318, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 4} Relator then filed additional affidavits with the board in support of 
the motion for default.  The master commissioner reviewed the additional 
evidence and dismissed all allegations in Counts II through IX and Counts XI, 
XIII, XV, XIX, and XXII of the amended complaint except some of the alleged 
violations of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  The dismissed charges were not supported by 
clear and convincing evidence, according to the master commissioner. 
{¶ 5} He found, however, that the remaining allegations in the amended 
complaint had been proven, and he again recommended that respondent be 
disbarred.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation and added conclusions as to Count 
XVIII.  The case is now before us for consideration of the board’s report. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 6} Respondent neglected the divorce case of Debra Toeppe, whom 
she had apparently represented in the late 1990s, by failing to file a proposed 
qualified domestic relations order after Toeppe’s divorce.  Respondent admitted 
January Term, 2006 
3 
this misconduct while providing testimony in June 2002 during relator’s 
investigation of Toeppe’s grievance.  Prior to this proceeding, however, 
respondent had failed to respond to an investigative inquiry, and she apparently 
had no further contact with relator about the grievance after her testimony. 
{¶ 7} We therefore adopt the board’s findings that respondent violated 
the following Disciplinary Rules: DR 6-101(A)(2) (barring the handling of a legal 
matter without adequate preparation) and 6-101(A)(3) (barring a lawyer from 
neglecting an entrusted legal matter), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring 
attorneys to cooperate with and assist in any disciplinary investigation). 
Count VI 
{¶ 8} Respondent did not reply when relator asked her to respond to a 
grievance filed by Shannon Niehaus in 2003.  We therefore adopt the board’s 
finding that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count VII 
{¶ 9} Respondent did not reply when relator asked her to respond to a 
grievance filed by Sandra Kearse in 2003.  We therefore adopt the board’s finding 
that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Counts VIII and IX 
{¶ 10} Respondent did not reply when relator asked her to respond to 
grievances filed by Marie Stansell and Sharon Kennedy in 2003.  We therefore 
adopt the board’s finding that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) with 
respect to both of those grievances. 
Count X 
{¶ 11} In August 2002, Delana M. Carter retained respondent to represent 
her in a divorce case and paid $2,000 to the respondent for her services.  
Respondent spent several weeks preparing paperwork for Carter and her husband 
to sign, but after signing, Carter was unable to contact respondent again, despite 
numerous attempts over several months.  Without a final order in the divorce 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
case, Carter could not compel her husband to pay child support or other 
obligations, and she was forced to apply for government benefits to support her 
family.  Respondent did not reply when relator asked her to respond to a 
grievance filed by Carter in 2003. 
{¶ 12} We therefore adopt the board’s finding that respondent violated 
DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2) (requiring a lawyer to carry out a contract of 
employment), and 7-101(A)(3) (barring conduct that prejudices or damages a 
client), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count XI 
{¶ 13} Respondent did not reply when relator asked her to respond to a 
grievance filed by Jeanine M. Rose in 2003.  We therefore adopt the board’s 
finding that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count XII 
{¶ 14} After Jeanine Rose terminated respondent as her lawyer in a 
divorce proceeding and hired attorney John Hilgeman, respondent did not give 
Rose’s case file to Hilgeman as he requested.  Respondent also did not reply when 
relator asked her to respond to a grievance filed by Hilgeman in 2003. 
{¶ 15} We therefore adopt the board’s finding that respondent violated 
DR 1-102(A)(5) (barring conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 7-
101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring prompt payment of the client’s funds or 
other property in the lawyer’s possession), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count XIII 
{¶ 16} Respondent did not reply when relator asked her to respond to a 
grievance filed by Deborah L. Parker in 2003.  We therefore adopt the board’s 
finding that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count XIV 
{¶ 17} Pamela and Royal Smith hired respondent in October 2002 to 
represent them in a bankruptcy matter, and they paid her $400.  Although 
January Term, 2006 
5 
respondent assured them that she would take care of their bankruptcy filing, she 
evidently took no action on their behalf, and two of Royal Smith’s paychecks 
were garnished for a total of $766.59.  Respondent did not return the Smiths’ 
money or reimburse them for the garnished wages, and she failed to reply to 
relator’s inquiries about a grievance filed by the Smiths in 2003. 
{¶ 18} We therefore adopt the board’s finding that respondent violated 
DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count XV 
{¶ 19} Respondent did not reply when relator asked her to respond to a 
grievance filed by Harold and Mary James in 2003.  We therefore adopt the 
board’s finding that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count XVI 
{¶ 20} In February 2002, Adrienne R. Simonton retained respondent to 
represent her in dissolution and bankruptcy matters and paid $1,750 to respondent 
for her services.  Respondent failed to appear at a hearing in Simonton’s 
dissolution case even though Simonton had left several messages for her before 
the hearing.  Respondent never returned the calls, never filed the necessary 
paperwork to complete the dissolution, and never performed work needed by 
Simonton for the bankruptcy case.  Simonton wrote letters to respondent 
terminating the representation and asking for a refund.  Respondent never replied, 
never returned any money, and never responded to relator’s inquiries about a 
grievance filed by Simonton in 2003. 
{¶ 21} We therefore adopt the board’s findings that respondent violated 
DR 1-102(A)(5), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4), as well as Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G). 
Count XVII 
{¶ 22} In September 2002, William R. Bingamon retained respondent to 
represent him in a divorce case and paid a total of $1,000 in September and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
October 2002 to respondent for her services.  For four months after filing a 
divorce complaint on Bingamon’s behalf in October 2002, respondent failed to 
perfect service of that complaint on Bingamon’s wife.  When respondent did not 
return his calls about the case, Bingamon terminated the representation and 
requested a refund.  Respondent never returned any money and never responded 
to relator’s inquiries about a grievance filed by Bingamon in 2003. 
{¶ 23} We therefore adopt the board’s findings that respondent violated 
DR 1-102(A)(5), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(2), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count XVIII 
{¶ 24} In November 2002, respondent filed a motion for reallocation of 
parental rights on behalf of Karen Bargiel.  A hearing on the motion was 
scheduled for February 19, 2003, but respondent failed to serve opposing counsel 
with a notice of the hearing.  It was rescheduled for a date in April 2003, but 
again respondent failed to serve opposing counsel and this time failed to appear at 
the hearing herself.  Bargiel did appear at the hearing and told the magistrate that 
respondent had failed to return her calls since the first hearing date.  Respondent 
never replied to relator’s inquiries about a grievance filed by the magistrate in 
2003. 
{¶ 25} We therefore adopt the board’s findings that respondent violated 
DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count XIX 
{¶ 26} Respondent did not reply when relator asked her to respond to a 
grievance filed by Angela Parker in 2003.  We therefore adopt the board’s finding 
that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count XX 
{¶ 27} In September 2002, Leon B. Bailey retained respondent to 
represent him in a divorce case and paid $1,000 to respondent for her services.  
Bailey signed paperwork prepared by respondent, but the paperwork was 
January Term, 2006 
7 
evidently never filed by respondent in court, and Bailey did not obtain the divorce 
that he had wanted.  He and his wife tried to speak with respondent, but she did 
not reply, and she never returned any money to Bailey.  Respondent also never 
responded to relator’s inquiries about a grievance filed by Bailey in 2003. 
{¶ 28} We therefore adopt the board’s findings that respondent violated 
DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count XXI 
{¶ 29} At some point before June 2003, Jabe Smith retained respondent to 
represent him in a child-custody case and paid $1,500 to respondent for her 
services.  Respondent told Smith that the case would be heard in court several 
months later, but after several months had passed with no news from respondent, 
Smith tried without success to contact her.  Respondent evidently took no action 
in the case on Smith’s behalf and never returned his case file or the retainer.  She 
also never responded to relator’s inquiries about a grievance filed by Smith in 
2003. 
{¶ 30} We therefore adopt the board’s findings that respondent violated 
DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(3), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Sanction 
{¶ 31} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, we take into 
account, as did the board, the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 
10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  As aggravating factors, we adopt the board’s findings that 
respondent acted with a selfish motive, committed a pattern of misconduct and 
multiple offenses, did not cooperate in the disciplinary process, harmed 
vulnerable victims, and failed to make restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), 
(c), (d), (e), (h), and (i).  We also acknowledge several cited mitigating factors, 
including the absence of any prior disciplinary record, BCGD Proc.Reg. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
10(B)(2)(a), the postpartum depression experienced by respondent during some of 
the events at issue, and the difficulties she encountered when her husband – a 
Greek national – was living in Canada and was unable to secure a visa that would 
allow him to work there. 
{¶ 32} Relator recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred 
from the practice of law for her misconduct.  The master commissioner and the 
board accepted this recommendation. 
{¶ 33} Having found that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 6-
101(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4), as well as 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), we also agree that permanent disbarment is appropriate.  
Respondent has seriously and repeatedly neglected her clients, has ignored 
investigative inquiries of the grievances against her, and has evidently taken no 
steps to repay the clients from whom she accepted retainers.  As we said in 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 102 Ohio St.3d 264, 2004-Ohio-2683, 809 
N.E.2d 1113, ¶ 16: “Taking retainers and failing to carry out contracts of 
employment is tantamount to theft of the fee from the client.  Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Sigall (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 15, 17, 14 OBR 320, 470 N.E.2d 886.  
The presumptive disciplinary measure for such acts of misappropriation is 
disbarment.  Disciplinary Counsel v. France, 97 Ohio St.3d 240, 2002-Ohio-
5945, 778 N.E.2d 573, ¶ 11.”  We see no reason in this record why that 
presumption should not be followed in this case. 
{¶ 34} Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio, and she is ordered to pay restitution to her former clients 
within 30 days in an amount to be determined by relator.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2006 
9 
__________________ 
 
Adolf Olivas, Bennett A. Manning, and Megan Richards, for relator. 
______________________