Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Aldrich

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Aldrich, 93 Ohio St.3d 625, 2001-Ohio-1887.] 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. ALDRICH. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Aldrich (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 625.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Failing to act 
competently — Failing to appear at disciplinary hearing. 
(No. 01-1202 — Submitted August 28, 2001 — Decided November 21, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-57. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On August 14, 2000, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, 
filed a three-count complaint charging that respondent, Thomas P. Aldrich III of 
Lyndhurst, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0042451, violated several provisions 
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent answered, and the matter 
was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“board”). 
 
Respondent failed to appear for two depositions and for the March 30, 
2001 hearing before the panel.  Based on evidence at the hearing, the panel found 
that in September 1998, Ingrid Pfeffer employed respondent to prepare a new will 
for her and to prepare and file a deed so that her house would be jointly owned by 
her and her son.  Respondent drafted the new will and the deed, but in May 1999, 
Pfeffer discovered that the property at issue was now held in her name and that of 
her deceased father.  Respondent admitted that he had made an error and 
promised to correct it at his own expense.  However, respondent failed to correct 
the deed or respond to Pfeffer’s numerous attempts to contact him. 
 
The panel further found that in 1995, respondent filed suit on behalf of a 
client against the city of Rocky River and the Rocky River Municipal Court.  The 
case was dismissed on grounds of sovereign immunity.  The Cuyahoga County 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal and imposed a sanction on respondent for 
pursuing a frivolous appeal.  Sarossy v. Sarossy (Apr. 20, 1995), Cuyahoga App. 
No. 67493, unreported, 1995 WL 237131.  In 1996, that court of appeals affirmed 
the trial court’s imposition of sanctions on respondent for filing a suit for which 
there was no basis in existing law and which could not be supported by a good-
faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.  
Johnson v. Allen (Feb. 15, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 68912, unreported, 1996 
WL 65839. 
 
In addition, the panel found that in 1995, the appellate court affirmed the 
granting of a summary judgment motion that respondent had opposed.  The court 
found that respondent’s opposition to this motion contained “numerous 
uncertified, unauthenticated and immaterial documents” and that he failed to 
support his opposition in the trial court with the requisite evidentiary materials.  
Nofel v. Bank of N. Am. (Aug. 24, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 68636, unreported, 
1995 WL 502530.  Again in 1995, the appellate court affirmed a lower court 
decision granting summary judgment, finding that respondent failed to produce 
evidence on any issue for which he had the burden of production. Lindow v. N. 
Royalton (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 152, 661 N.E.2d 253.  Finally, in 1996, the 
appellate court affirmed Civ.R. 11 sanctions against respondent for failing to 
support with evidence his opposition to summary judgment. Taylor v. Franklin 
Blvd. Nursing Home, Inc. (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 27, 677 N.E.2d 1212. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s actions with respect to Pfeffer and 
his conduct in the Sarossy, Johnson, Nofel, Lindow, and Taylor cases violated DR 
1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and 6-101(A) (failing to act competently).  The 
panel further found that respondent demonstrated a total disregard for the judicial 
system, and, by not even appearing at the hearing set on these disciplinary 
matters.  The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from 
January Term, 2001 
3 
the practice of law in Ohio.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
 
Having reviewed the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents and would disbar respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Rebecca A. Wistner and Maureen Sheridan Kenny, for relator. 
 
Thomas P. Aldrich III, pro se. 
__________________