Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Droe

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. DROE. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Droe (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 143.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Violating a 
Disciplinary Rule — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — 
Attempting to exonerate or limit liability to client for personal malpractice 
— Neglecting or refusing to assist in disciplinary investigation or hearing 
— Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — 
Failing to promptly pay or deliver funds or property in attorney’s 
possession which client requests and is entitled to receive. 
(No. 98-1231 — Submitted August 19, 1998 — Decided December 2, 
1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-30. 
 
In a three-count complaint filed on April 14, 1997, relator, Cleveland Bar 
Association, charged respondent, William G. Droe of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0040993, with violations of 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 on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law); 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted 
legal matter); 6-102(A) (attempting to exonerate or limit liability to his client for 
personal malpractice); 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay or deliver funds or 
property in the attorney’s possession which the client requests and is entitled to 
receive); and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (neglecting or refusing to assist in an investigation 
or hearing).  In his answer, respondent admitted some facts alleged in the complaint 
and denied others. 
 
2
 
After the parties agreed to a detailed stipulation of facts and waived a 
hearing, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of 
the Supreme Court (“board”) considered the matter.  The complaint, answer, and 
stipulations established the following. 
 
As to Count I, respondent agreed to represent Laurel Bushnell and Thomas 
Colagrossi in connection with injuries they received in an automobile accident on 
October 27, 1990, against Bradley Hammel, the driver of the other motor vehicle.  
On October 23, 1992, respondent filed a common pleas court complaint against 
Hammel, but never secured service of process.  Although notice was sent to 
respondent that service had not been perfected on Hammel, respondent failed to 
take any steps to secure service of process.  In June 1993, the trial judge issued an 
order that the case would be dismissed if service was not perfected by July 14, 
1993.  Thereafter, respondent failed to take further steps to perfect service, and the 
complaint was dismissed without prejudice in September 1993.  When respondent 
learned of the dismissal, he filed a second complaint and secured service of 
process against Hammel.  Hammel then secured a favorable judgment on the 
pleadings based upon the two-year statute of limitations. 
 
In January 1996, respondent sent Bushnell a check, which respondent 
represented was from Hammel’s insurance carrier to settle Bushnell’s claim.  In 
fact, the carrier had issued no check.  Respondent continued to represent to 
Colagrossi that he was negotiating with Hammel’s insurance carrier to settle his 
claim and did not advise Colagrossi that no settlement was possible because his 
claim had been dismissed.  Following grievances by Bushnell and Colagrossi, 
respondent failed to respond or cooperate with relator’s investigation. 
 
With respect to Count II, respondent was retained to represent Mary Ann 
Tadiello as executor of the estate of Anthony Trivison, who died in June 1991.  In 
 
3
December 1993, Tadiello was removed as executor after the probate court had 
issued at least three show cause orders against Tadiello.  Although Tadiello had 
furnished to respondent the necessary information and documents, respondent 
failed to timely file an original inventory for the estate or an accounting, as he had 
agreed to do.  Respondent never told Tadiello that the inventory and accounting 
were not filed, but instead assured Tadiello, who received the show cause orders, 
that the probate court had made a mistake and that respondent was attending to the 
matter.  Respondent’s failure to file the accounting and inventory caused 
unnecessary delays, expenses, and penalties in probating the estate.  Respondent 
also failed in his duty to oversee the timely preparation and filing of an Ohio 
Estate Tax return for the estate. 
 
As to Count III, Benjamin J. Lynch retained respondent in late 1989 for a 
number of legal matters.  In the course of the representation, respondent had in his 
possession at least ten money orders, each for $280, which Lynch had obtained.  
Although respondent agreed to obtain refunds on these money orders, respondent 
failed to do so, and instead retained possession of the money orders until June 
1995.  Respondent also represented Lynch in a dispute with a funeral home and 
two of Lynch’s sisters arising from the burial and funeral expenses for Lynch’s 
mother.  After the funeral home secured a $6,528 judgment against Lynch, 
respondent agreed to initiate legal proceedings against the two sisters who had 
refused to honor their agreement each to contribute one-fourth of the funeral home 
bill.  During his handling of this dispute, respondent received $1,700 from a third 
sister, which respondent placed in his IOLTA.  Despite requests from the third 
sister, respondent failed to return the $1,700 to her. 
 
The panel noted that the parties had stipulated that as to each of the three 
counts, respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(1) and 6-101(A)(3).  Also, as to 
 
4
both Counts I and II, respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4), and as to Count I, 
he had violated DR 6-102(A) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  Finally, as to Count III, 
respondent had also violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and 9-102(B)(4).1  As to mitigation, 
the panel noted that respondent in a letter had acknowledged responsibility for his 
actions. 
 
Relator recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law, but respondent suggested that some lesser punishment might be 
warranted, since grievance committees knew about this misconduct when prior 
disciplinary action had been taken.  The panel noted that respondent had 
previously been suspended for one year, with six months stayed, “for similar 
misconduct involving neglect of client’s legal matters and for misrepresentation 
made  to his clients.”  See Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Droe (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 89, 
671 N.E.2d 230 (“Droe I”).  Accordingly, the panel recommended that respondent 
be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. 
 
The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommendation. 
__________________ 
 
Brian P. Downey and Timothy J. Fitzgerald, for relator. 
 
William G. Droe, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  After review, we concur with the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Earlier in Droe I, we noted that “if an attorney 
expects to remain on the rolls of those permitted to practice law in this state, he 
must demonstrate respect for his clients.” Droe I, 77 Ohio St.3d at 90, 671 N.E.2d 
at 231.  As the stipulations show, respondent demonstrated repeated misconduct 
and neglect as well as failure to respect his clients. 
 
5
 
Respondent’s earlier actions occurred in 1984 and 1990 and resulted in 
Droe I.  His misconduct here began in 1990 and extended through 1996.  We are 
satisfied that respondent’s continued misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, and misrepresentation, as well as his neglect of his clients’ legal matters, 
warrants an indefinite suspension from the practice of law.  See Cleveland Bar 
Assn. v. Rea (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 71, 676 N.E.2d 514; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Kaigler (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 197, 566 N.E.2d 673.  Accordingly, respondent is 
hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents. 
FOOTNOTE: 
1. 
The panel had earlier dropped allegations charging a violation of Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G), contained in Counts II and III. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  Respondent’s neglect and deceit has spanned more than 
ten years.  Though this court sanctioned him before for this same sort of misconduct, 
respondent was undeterred.  I therefore believe that the sanction imposed by the 
majority (allowing respondent to apply to be readmitted after two years) fails to 
adequately protect the public.  Respondent has demonstrated that he is unworthy of 
clients’ trust and thus should be permanently disbarred.