Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Meyer

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Meyer, 95 Ohio St.3d 111, 2002-Ohio-1941.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. MEYER. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Meyer (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 111.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglect of an 
entrusted legal matter — Failing to seek client’s lawful objectives — 
Failing to carry out contract of professional employment — Failing to 
account for or return client’s funds — Failing to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 01-2171 — Submitted February 6, 2002 — Decided April 24, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-32. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On April 9, 2001, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent, Richard Allen Meyer, Jr., of Toledo, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0008952, with three counts of professional misconduct.  
Respondent failed to answer, and the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline referred relator’s motion for default to a master commissioner for 
ruling. 
 
Count One of the complaint charged that Antonio and Barbara Duran 
retained respondent in May 1999 to file bankruptcy on their behalf.  The couple 
paid respondent $800, but to their knowledge he never filed the bankruptcy 
petition.  Respondent also failed to keep contact with these clients, and he never 
returned their file or their retainer.  The master commissioner found that this 
conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(1) (failing to seek client’s lawful objectives), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry 
out a contact of professional employment), and 9-102 (failing to account for or 
return client’s funds).  Because respondent failed to cooperate in relator’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
investigation of the misconduct, the master commissioner also found that 
respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
 
With respect to Count Two, the master commissioner found that 
respondent had violated the same rules in the course of representing Robert T. 
Pirucki, Sr.  Pirucki retained respondent in July 1998 to file a bankruptcy on his 
behalf.  Pirucki paid respondent $800, but again respondent failed to file the 
bankruptcy petition and to maintain contact with his client.  Respondent further 
failed to return any portion of Pirucki’s funds.  Because respondent failed to 
cooperate in the investigation of this misconduct, the master commissioner found 
that respondent had again violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
 
According to Count Three, Pirucki also engaged respondent to represent 
him in a divorce action in 1998.  Respondent did not maintain client contact in 
this case and further failed to notify Pirucki of or represent him at two scheduled 
court appearances.  Pirucki ultimately had to retain other counsel.  The master 
commissioner found that this conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(1) 
and (2) and also that respondent’s failure to cooperate in the investigation of this 
misconduct violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
 
For all these infractions and the lack of any mitigating factors, the master 
commissioner recommended, as had relator, that respondent be suspended 
indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio.  Upon adopting the master 
commissioner’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, the board accepted this 
recommendation. 
 
On review of the record, we concur in the board’s findings of misconduct 
and agree that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction.  Accordingly, 
respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Paul D. Giha and Patricia Horner, for relator. 
__________________