Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Dreher

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Dreher, 88 Ohio St.3d 276, 2000-Ohio-338.] 
 
 
 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. DREHER. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Dreher (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 276.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension stayed — Violating a 
Disciplinary Rule — Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on ability to 
practice law — Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation — Failing to withdraw from employment when 
continued employment will violate a Disciplinary Rule — Neglecting an 
entrusted legal matter — Failing to carry out contract of employment for 
professional services — Failing to promptly pay or deliver to client 
property or funds to which client is entitled. 
(No. 99-1896 — Submitted December 15, 1999 — Decided March 22, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-97. 
 
On December 7, 1998, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent, Joseph M. Dreher of Chagrin Falls, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0016616, with violating several Disciplinary Rules.  Respondent 
answered, and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
 
2
 
The panel found that in October 1996, Judy Murphy, executor of the estate 
of her father, Leroy W. Clayton, hired respondent and paid him a retainer of 
$5,000 to complete the probate of the estate.  The following month respondent 
informed Murphy of the progress in the probate action and estimated closing the 
estate in the spring of 1997. 
 
In April 1997, the Supreme Court of Ohio suspended respondent from the 
practice of law for failure to meet his continuing legal education requirements for 
the 1994-1995 biennium.  In re Report of the Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn. 
(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 1478, 1480, 678 N.E.2d 942, 944.  He did not inform 
Murphy of his suspension. 
 
In June and July 1997, respondent received papers from Murphy relating to a 
relative who wished to purchase property from the estate.  Respondent then 
prepared a purchase agreement and told Murphy, who was concerned about the 
apparent inactivity in the estate, that he would obtain an extension of time to 
permit the sale. 
 
In September 1997, Murphy received a citation letter from the probate court 
for failing to file an inventory.  Respondent assured her that he would take care of 
everything within one week.  Murphy called the probate court in October 1997 and 
found that respondent was not listed as attorney of record and had filed no 
 
 
3
documents in the case, which had been opened by another attorney prior to 
respondent’s involvement. 
 
In November 1997, after being advised by the probate court that a warrant 
had been issued for her arrest for not meeting her obligations as executor of the 
estate, Murphy discharged respondent, asked for a return of the retainer, and hired 
new counsel, who completed probate of the estate in July 1998.  In February 1999, 
respondent repaid the $5,000 to Murphy and an additional $1,000 to reimburse the 
estate for the interest expense increase because of the late filing of the state tax 
return. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(1) 
(violating a Disciplinary Rule), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct 
that adversely reflects upon the attorney’s ability to practice law), 2-110(B)(2) 
(failing to withdraw from employment when continued employment will violate a 
Disciplinary Rule), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to 
carry out a contract of employment for professional services), and 9-102(B)(4) 
(failing to promptly pay and deliver to the client property or funds to which the 
client is entitled). 
 
In mitigation the panel found that in 1995, shortly after respondent was 
divorced, he left his employment as a C.P.A. at Ernst & Young to live on the East 
 
 
4
Coast, take care of his sister who had developed brain cancer, and care for her 
children.  Respondent became insolvent and suffered depression for which he has 
received treatment and counseling.  Respondent is now employed and has paid 
back the $5,000 retainer and the interest expense incurred by the estate because of 
his delay.  He is presently taking CLE courses to reinstate himself as a member of 
the bar. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law for one year with the entire one-year suspension stayed, during which time 
respondent be placed on probation.  The terms of probation would include an 
evaluation by a mental health professional approved by the relator whose report 
will be available to the relator.  Also, respondent would accept any treatment or 
counseling recommended as a result of the evaluation. 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel. 
__________________ 
 
Thomas J. Escovar, Otha M. Jackson and Justin F. Madden, for relator. 
 
Mary L. Cibella, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year 
 
 
5
with the entire one-year suspension stayed. During this stay, respondent shall be on 
probation under terms which include an evaluation by a mental health professional 
approved by the relator whose report will be available to the relator.  Respondent 
will accept any treatment or counseling recommended as a result of the evaluation.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.