Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Green

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Green, 97 Ohio St.3d 119, 2002-Ohio-5314.] 
 
 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. GREEN. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Green, 97 Ohio St.3d 119, 2002-Ohio-5314.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Failing to keep 
client’s funds in a separate identifiable bank account — Failing to 
maintain complete records — Failing to cooperate in the disciplinary 
process. 
(No. 2002-0721 — Submitted June 26, 2002 — Decided October 16, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-61. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
We are asked to decide in this case whether an attorney who failed 
to keep appropriate records of her client’s funds and commingled those funds with 
her own should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  The 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended this 
sanction after finding that respondent, Lana F. Green, last known address in 
Trotwood, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0051802, had engaged in this conduct 
and thereby violated DR 9-102(A) (failing to keep client’s funds in separate 
identifiable bank account) and (B) (failing to maintain complete records).  We 
agree that an indefinite suspension is appropriate. 
{¶2} 
In 1997 and 1998, respondent represented two clients in personal 
injury actions, both of whom had received medical treatment in exchange for the 
provider’s lien on proceeds from their suits.  Apparently, respondent settled the 
suits for some amount in 1997, but she did not immediately pay the medical 
provider in accordance with the lien agreement.  In October 1998, respondent 
wrote a $3,814 check to the provider to cover the amount owed by her clients.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
She drew the check on her office account, as opposed to a client trust account.  
The check was returned for insufficient funds. 
{¶3} 
Also in October 1998, respondent wrote a $559 check to the same 
provider on behalf of a different client, again drawing the funds from her office 
account.  Her account did not contain sufficient funds to cover the check.  By late 
November or early December 1998, however, respondent had paid the provider in 
full for the amounts owed by all three clients. 
{¶4} 
On October 11, 1999, relator, Dayton Bar Association, charged 
respondent with various violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A 
panel of the board heard the cause, found the facts as stated, and concluded that 
respondent had committed the cited misconduct.  In making its recommendation, 
the panel applied the guidelines for evaluating mitigating and aggravating 
evidence in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline.  The panel found that respondent had not cooperated in the 
disciplinary process because while she did answer the complaint, she did not 
respond timely or sometimes at all to notices and motions, and she did not appear 
at the hearing.1  In mitigation, the panel considered that respondent apparently had 
no prior record of misconduct.  Respondent also explained in a letter that relevant 
records had been destroyed when her office water pipes burst, and she apologized 
that she could not defend herself for this reason. 
{¶5} 
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct 
and recommendation.  We agree with the board. 
                                                 
1  In various filings before the board, respondent reported several different addresses, and the 
board consistently attempted to notify her of proceedings at every address available.  For the most 
part, the board received some indication that respondent had received these mailings; however, the 
notices of hearing, which were sent by certified mail to three separate addresses, were never 
signed for. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
{¶6} 
An indefinite suspension may be imposed when an attorney 
violates DR 9-102(A) and (B) and does not cooperate in the disciplinary process.  
See, e.g., Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Frazier, 96 Ohio St.3d 46, 2002-Ohio-2994, 770 
N.E.2d 1006.  Having committed this misconduct, respondent is therefore 
suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
David H. Fuchsman, for relator. 
__________________