Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Robinson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROBINSON. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Robinson (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with sanction stayed on 
conditions — Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation. 
(No. 98-720 — Submitted May 27, 1998 — Decided September 30, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-22. 
 
On February 6, 1995, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a 
complaint charging respondent, Ronald Robinson of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0029934, with violating several Disciplinary Rules arising out of 
his failure to pursue a civil suit on behalf of a client.  Respondent filed an answer, 
and the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
The panel found that on April 25, 1988, respondent filed suit on behalf of 
Philip Abbott, alleging that Abbott’s sister stole $56,752 from him in workers’ 
compensation checks.  Abbott was unaware that his case was dismissed for want 
of prosecution on March 14, 1990, and that respondent’s motion for relief from 
judgment was denied on February 6, 1991.  As late as June 1992, respondent 
continued to inform Abbott that he was working on his case.  Abbott subsequently 
employed other legal counsel, who obtained a malpractice judgment against 
respondent for $33,016.75, which has not been satisfied. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s actions and failure to act violated DR 
1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation).  It found in mitigation that respondent had not been previously 
sanctioned.  It further found that he cooperated with Disciplinary Counsel, that he 
 
2
recognized the gravity of his actions and was remorseful for them, and that during 
the time of the actions he was suffering from bipolar disorder.  The panel 
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six 
months, but that the entire six-month suspension be stayed, provided respondent 
complete a two-year probationary period under a monitor selected by relator.  The 
panel recommended the following conditions to respondent’s probation: (1) that 
no further disciplinary complaints be certified against respondent during the 
probationary period, (2) that during the probationary period respondent regularly 
consult with a qualified treating psychiatrist and follow all of the psychiatrist’s 
orders relating to medication, (3) that respondent engage in an individualized form 
of cognitive rehabilitation performed by a clinical neuropsychologist who will 
tailor a program around actual tasks and real-life demands respondent faces in 
conducting a law practice, (4) that to compensate for his impaired memory 
abilities, respondent adopt various techniques and aids, such as maintaining 
schedules and tracking appointments and time, and be trained in practical note-
taking, and (5) that respondent acquire and learn to use a personal computer in his 
law practice.  The board adopted the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of 
the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Harald F. Craig III, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
George S. Coakley, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Having reviewed the record, we adopt the findings, 
conclusion, and recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended 
from the practice of law for six months; however, the entire six-month suspension 
 
3
is stayed, provided that respondent complete a two-year probationary period, 
under a monitor selected by relator, upon the conditions set forth by the board in 
its report, and upon the further condition that, during the probationary period, 
respondent satisfy the malpractice judgment against him in the amount of 
$33,016.75.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.