Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Randall

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Randall, 118 Ohio St.3d 408, 2008-Ohio-2709.] 
 
 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. RANDALL. 
 [Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Randall, 118 Ohio St.3d 408, 2008-Ohio-2709.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice—Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—Neglect 
of entrusted legal matters—Failure to cooperate in disciplinary 
investigation—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2007-2320 – Submitted February 6, 2008 – Decided June 12, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-086. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Lucinda D. Randall of Spring Valley, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0014374, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1981. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a complaint charging 
respondent with several violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  
Respondent failed to answer the complaint, and pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F), 
relator moved for default.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline appointed a master commissioner.  The master commissioner granted 
relator’s motion for a default judgment, making findings of fact and conclusions 
of law and a recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
{¶ 3} The board recommends that we indefinitely suspend respondent’s 
license to practice law based on findings that she committed several disciplinary 
violations.  We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and recommended 
sanction.  We also find an additional violation not found by the board. 
Misconduct 
United States District Court 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} Between November 2000 and February 2004, respondent filed 
eight Social Security appeals in the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of Ohio.  Respondent initiated these actions on behalf of plaintiffs 
Okragly, Wells, Miller, Adams, Wright, Dalton, Harris, and Ruzick.1  Respondent 
failed to prosecute the cases. 
{¶ 5} In seven of the cases, Magistrate Judge Michael Merz issued 
orders to plaintiffs to show cause why their cases should not be dismissed for 
want of prosecution.  Respondent failed to respond to the show-cause orders on 
behalf of her clients.  As a result, the cases were dismissed without prejudice for 
want of prosecution. 
{¶ 6} In the Adams case, Magistrate Merz ordered the plaintiff to file a 
“Statement of Errors” by a certain date.  When respondent failed to comply with 
this order, the Adams case was dismissed for want of prosecution as well. 
{¶ 7} Between April 2003 and March 2004, respondent neglected the 
cases of four other clients in the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of Ohio.  In these cases – involving plaintiffs Lawson, Brewer, Borts, and 
Price – respondent exhibited the same neglect of legal matters and disregard of 
court orders and procedures as above.2  As a result, the district court adopted 
Magistrate Judge Sharon Ovington’s recommendation that each case be dismissed 
without prejudice for want of prosecution. 
{¶ 8} With respect to the above misconduct, the board found that 
respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) 
(prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 
                                                 
1. The Dalton, Harris, and Ruzick cases were not mentioned in either the board’s report or the 
master commissioner’s report. 
 
2. These cases were not mentioned in either the board’s report or the master commissioner’s 
report. 
January Term, 2008 
3 
and 7-106(B)(7) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally or habitually violating 
any established rule of procedure).  Respondent had also been charged with 
violating DR 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal 
matter).  The board found without further explanation that there was insufficient 
evidence to support this violation. 
Failure to Cooperate in Disciplinary Investigation 
{¶ 9} The board attempted to serve respondent with a copy of the 
complaint at the address on file for her with the Office of Attorney Registration.  
Service was later perfected through the Clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Respondent did not answer the complaint.  Counsel for 
relator also attempted to contact respondent at her last known telephone number.  
Respondent failed to respond to the inquiries or otherwise cooperate in the 
investigation of these matters.  By ignoring relator’s investigative inquiries and 
failing to answer the complaint, respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) 
(requiring a lawyer to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 10} In recommending a sanction, the board considered the following 
aggravating 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.”).  The board noted that 
respondent is currently under suspension for failing to comply with this court’s 
attorney-registration requirements.  The board also found that there was a pattern 
of misconduct and a lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (e). 
{¶ 11} The relator recommended that respondent be permanently 
disbarred.  The master commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended 
from the practice of law indefinitely.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s recommendation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Review 
{¶12} Respondent does not challenge the board’s findings of misconduct 
or the recommended sanction.  We have reviewed the board’s record and its 
report, and we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), and 
7-106(B)(7), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
{¶13} We also find, contrary to the board, that sufficient evidence exists 
to show that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
neglecting an entrusted legal matter).  See Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Reid (1999), 85 
Ohio St.3d 327, 708 N.E.2d 193, paragraph one of the syllabus (this court is not 
bound by the board’s findings of fact or conclusions of law).  Respondent failed 
to prosecute the cases of several clients in the United States District Court.  As a 
result of respondent’s neglect, the district court dismissed the complaints for want 
of prosecution. 
{¶14} We therefore accept the board’s recommendation of an indefinite 
suspension.  Respondent committed several disciplinary violations.  By 
abandoning her clients’ cases, she failed to protect their interests.  She also 
violated her duty to comply with court orders and neglected her duty to the legal 
profession and the public by refusing to cooperate in the disciplinary process.  
Moreover, respondent has been under suspension since 2005 for failing to comply 
with this court’s attorney-registration requirements.  See 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 
1456, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671.  Finally, the record before us contains no 
mitigating evidence to warrant a lesser sanction. 
{¶15} Accordingly, respondent is indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’CONNOR, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2008 
5 
 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶16} I respectfully dissent.  Based on Randall’s existing suspension 
from 2005, her failure to respond in this case, and the absence of any mitigating 
evidence, I believe that the appropriate sanction is an order to disbar. 
{¶17} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Lord, 114 Ohio St.3d 466, 2007-Ohio-
4260, 873 N.E.2d 273, ¶ 2, we disbarred an attorney after finding that he had 
mishandled several matters for various clients and had failed to cooperate in the 
investigation.  We noted that when considering an appropriate sanction, our court 
considers “the duties violated, the actual or potential injury caused, the attorney's 
mental state, and sanctions imposed in similar cases.”  Id. at ¶ 29. 
{¶18} Here, Randall failed to prosecute several matters for her clients, 
breaching her “professional duty to conscientiously attend to clients’ interests.”  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Sabol, 118 Ohio St.3d 65, 2008-Ohio-1594, 886 N.E.2d 
191, ¶ 7.  Moreover, the neglected matters were dismissed for want of prosecution 
and could potentially cause further prejudice to these clients in the future in 
pursuance of their claims.  Randall did not submit any evidence in mitigation, and 
she has been under suspension since 2005 for failure to comply with attorney-
registration requirements.  This case is therefore similar to Lord, and I would 
impose the same sanction. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Mia Wortham Spells, for relator. 
______________________