Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Coyle

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. COYLE. 
[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Coyle (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 278.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Withdrawing from 
representation without permission — Withdrawing without taking steps to 
ensure client is not prejudiced — Withdrawing without returning unearned 
fees — Failing to seek lawful objective of client — Failing to carry out 
contract of employment — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Engaging 
in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice — Engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Handling a legal 
matter while unprepared. 
(No. 97-1286 — Submitted August 26, 1997 — Decided November 19, 1997.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-42. 
 
On December 18, 1996, relator, Mahoning County Bar Association, moved 
for a default judgment against respondent, James F. Coyle of Youngstown, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0004836, based on his failure to answer relator’s April 
1996 complaint charging him with violating several Disciplinary Rules. 
 
A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”) found that the complaint was transmitted to respondent 
by certified mail at his last known business address and returned by the post-office 
marked “moved left no address.”  After relator unsuccessfully attempted to serve 
respondent with the complaint at his last known home address, relator served the 
Clerk of the Supreme Court as an agent of respondent.  Respondent filed no 
answer to the complaint. 
 
Based upon the allegations of the complaint and the affidavits and 
grievances attached to relator’s motion for default judgment, the panel found that 
 
2
in 1993 Lawrence C. Memmer paid respondent a $5,000 retainer to represent him 
in domestic relations court.  After Memmer disapproved of the settlement 
negotiated by respondent, respondent failed to keep Memmer advised about the 
status of the case.  Eventually Memmer was told that respondent had left town.  
Memmer had also retained respondent to represent him with respect to a traffic 
violation.  Because of respondent’s inaction in this latter matter, Memmer was 
required to find another attorney.  Respondent did return the $100 retainer 
Memmer paid him for representation with respect to the traffic violation charge. 
 
The panel further found that in early 1995 respondent failed to appear in 
federal court three times to answer a show cause order issued by United States 
District Court Judge Paul R. Matia. 
 
The panel further found that in 1988, Karen S. Johnson hired respondent 
and paid him a $2,000 retainer to file an action against her employer.  Respondent 
obtained a default judgment for Johnson, but after the appellate court remanded 
the case for a determination of damages, respondent’s secretary advised Johnson 
to pick up her file because respondent would not be practicing law in the future.  
Johnson found another lawyer who agreed to represent her and who settled the 
matter. 
 
The panel concluded that with respect to the Memmer matters, respondent 
violated DR 2-110(A)(1) (withdrawing from representation without permission), 
2-110(A)(2) (withdrawing without taking steps to ensure that the client is not 
prejudiced), and 2-110(A)(3) (withdrawing without returning unearned fees), 7-
101(A)(1) (failing to seek the lawful objectives of a client) and 7-101(A)(2) 
(failing to carry out a contract of employment), and 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of a 
legal entrusted matter).  With respect to the grievance filed by Judge Matia, the 
panel concluded that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in 
 
3
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting upon one’s fitness to practice law).  The panel also 
concluded that with respect to the Johnson matter respondent violated DR 2-
110(A)(2), and 6-101(A)(2) (handling a legal matter while unprepared), and 6-
101(A)(3). 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tion of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Jay Tims and John T. Dellick, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendations of 
the board.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law 
in Ohio.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.