Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Westgate

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Westgate, 96 Ohio St.3d 208, 2002-Ohio-3997.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WESTGATE. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Westgate, 96 Ohio St.3d 208, 2002-Ohio-
3997.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Failing to comply 
with Supreme Court’s orders in previous disciplinary actions — 
Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice — 
Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — 
Failing to return client’s property — Failing to cooperate in a 
disciplinary investigation or hearing — Failing to file and update 
certificate of registration. 
(No. 2002-0326 — Submitted April 10, 2002 — Decided August 21, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-39. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In this case we are asked to review the recommendation of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board”) that respondent, Gregory Westgate, Attorney Registration No. 0036768, 
whose last known address is in Lorain, Ohio, be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  The board recommended this sanction after finding that 
respondent had failed (1) to comply with our previous orders in Lorain Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Westgate (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 34, 684 N.E.2d 311 (“Westgate I”), and 
Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Westgate (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 1418, 702 N.E.2d 429 
(“Westgate II”), (2) to maintain current registration and address listing with this 
court, (3) to return a file requested by a former client, and (4) to cooperate in an 
investigation of professional misconduct.  Based on these findings, the board 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
concluded that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects on an attorney’s fitness to practice law), 9-102(B)(4) (failing to 
return client’s property), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate), and 
VI(1)(A) and (D) (failing to file and update certificate of registration).  Upon 
review, we agree with the board’s findings of misconduct and that an indefinite 
suspension from the practice of law is the appropriate penalty. 
{¶2} 
In Westgate I, 80 Ohio St.3d 34, 684 N.E.2d 311, we ordered that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months because he 
agreed to an order suspending his client’s alimony payments without consulting 
her.  We then stayed imposition of that sanction and placed respondent on a one-
year probation during which he was to pursue instruction on managing a law 
office and pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding.  Respondent did not 
comply with our order, and on April 15, 1998, we ordered him to show cause why 
he should not be held in contempt.  Respondent also did not comply with the 
show cause order.  Accordingly, in Westgate II, 84 Ohio St.3d 1418, 702 N.E.2d 
429, we found him in contempt, revoked his probation, and suspended his license 
to practice law pending his compliance. 
{¶3} 
In July 1999, a former client of respondent began requesting that 
respondent return his case file and various police reports so that the client could 
challenge the criminal conviction for which he was serving a prison sentence.  
The client sent respondent a certified letter documenting his request; however, 
respondent made no reply. 
{¶4} 
After attempting to contact respondent by mail and subpoena, 
relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint with the board on April 9, 2001, 
charging respondent with professional misconduct.  Relator served respondent 
through the clerk of this court pursuant to Gov.Bar R.V(11)(B), and when he 
failed to answer, relator filed a motion for default.  Thereafter, relator discovered 
January Term, 2002 
3 
respondent’s cellular telephone number and was able to personally advise 
respondent of the disciplinary proceedings.  Relator then forwarded a copy of the 
disciplinary file to respondent and urged him to respond to the default motion.  He 
never did. 
{¶5} 
A master commissioner for the board heard the cause and found 
the facts as stated, with the additional finding that respondent’s official status for 
the 1999 biennium was “ ‘not registered.’ ”  The commissioner concluded that 
respondent’s conduct violated the above Disciplinary Rules and recommended 
that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  The board adopted 
these findings of misconduct and this recommendation. 
{¶6} 
We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 
9-102(B)(4), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and VI(1)(A) and (D).  We further agree 
that respondent’s misconduct warrants the penalty recommended.  Therefore, we 
order that respondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Claudia S. Herrington, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________