Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. McClure

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. McClure. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. McClure (1996), ____ Ohio St.3d ____.] 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Two-year suspension stayed with 
conditions -- Conduct that adversely reflfects on fitness to practice 
law -- Neglect of an entrusted legal matter -- Failure to cooperate in 
investigation of alleged misconduct -- Failure to meet continuing 
legal education requirements. 
 
(No. 95-1666 -- Submitted September 27, 1995 -- Decided January 17, 
1996.) 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-06. 
 
In a complaint filed on February 3, 1995, relator, Office of Disciplinary 
Counsel, charged respondent, David Bernard McClure of Sandusky, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0023268, with four counts of professional misconduct 
involving violations of, inter alia, DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely reflects 
on fitness to practice law) and 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of entrusted legal matter), as 
well as Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G) (failure to cooperate in investigation of alleged 
misconduct) and X (failure to meet continuing legal education requirements).  A 
 
2
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (‘board”) heard the matter on June 13, 1995. 
 
The parties stipulated to the facts underlying the charged misconduct as 
follows: 
“Count I 
 
“1.  Respondent * * *, an attorney at law, was admitted to the practice of 
law in the State of Ohio on October 27, 1967. 
 
“2.  On July 28, 1992, Stephen Wayne Havice retained Respondent for 
Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($750.00) to file bankruptcy for him.  On 
January 12, 1995, Relator contacted the Clerk of Courts Office of the U.S. 
Bankruptcy Court in Toledo, Ohio and learned that no bankruptcy papers had ever 
been filed on behalf of Mr. Havice. 
 
“3.  On October 18, 1994, Disciplinary Counsel sent a certified letter of 
inquiry to Respondent, requesting a reply to Mr. Havice’s complaint before 
November 1, 1994.  The green certified letter receipt was signed for by 
Respondent on November 1, 1994.  Thereafter, on November 15, 1994, Relator 
sent a second letter of inquiry to Respondent by certified mail to his law office 
address in Huron, Ohio as listed with the Office of Attorney Registration, Supreme 
 
3
Court of Ohio.  The letter was returned “unclaimed,” after two (2) notices were 
sent to Respondent. 
 
“4.  Upon receiving the returned mail, Relator contacted Respondent and 
learned from Mr. McClure that he had been ill and had not yet had an opportunity 
to send a response.  Respondent said a letter would be forthcoming.  As no letter 
was received by Relator, on December 6, 1994, another letter of inquiry was sent 
asking for an answer by December 20, 1994. 
 
“5.  On January 9, 1995, Relator attempted to contact David B. McClure at 
both his home and office telephone numbers as provided to the Office of Attorney 
Registration.  The phone had been disconnected with no forwarding numbers 
provided.  Upon calling directory assistance, Relator obtained a phone number in 
Sandusky, Ohio.  Respondent answered the phone at that location.  Respondent 
said his old phone was disconnected as he was experiencing financial difficulties 
and that his clients knew where they could reach him as he had the Sandusky 
office phone in operation for a year. 
 
“* * * 
“Count II 
 
4
 
“6.  On April 15, 1994, Wilma C. Hay’s husband, Samuel B. Hay, died.  On 
May 3, 1994, Mrs. Hay retained respondent for Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00) to 
assist in the transfer of a home title to Mrs. Hay’s name.  Respondent deposited 
this check on May 4, 1994. 
 
“7.  On June 20, 1994, Mrs. Hay provided Respondent with * * * waiver 
forms signed by her three (3) children.  Respondent advised Mrs. Hay that * * 
*[her mobile] home had to be appraised. 
 
“8.  On August 18, 1994, after not hearing from Respondent, Mrs. Hay 
contacted the Erie County Probate Court and learned that the Respondent had not 
yet filed the necessary papers.  On August 19th, Respondent did file an 
Application to Release the Estate from Administration as the only asset of the 
estate was the mobile home.  The case was delayed because Respondent failed to 
file the required listing of assets and liabilities. 
 
“9.  On October 5, 1994, Judge Jane B. Lucal, Probate Judge, signed an 
entry releasing the estate from administration.  On this date, Mrs. Hay personally 
met with Judge Lucal, who gave Mrs. Hay the release form needed to have a 
mobile home transferred to her. 
 
5
 
“10.  On October 7, 1994, Mrs. Hay’s son-in-law, Thomas R. Mathews, 
wrote a letter to Respondent requesting a refund of Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) 
of unused court deposit fees and Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) for 
‘overcharging for work not needed to be done.’  Respondent never responded to 
this communication. 
 
“11.  On January 10, 1995, Relator asked the Erie-Huron Counties Legal 
Grievance Committee to forward Mrs. Hay’s complaint to Disciplinary Counsel.  
Upon reviewing the submitted materials, it was noted that a letter of inquiry was 
sent by the Grievance Committee to Respondent on October 12, 1994, noting a 
hearing date of November 14, 1994.  The certified receipt was signed for by 
Respondent on October 14, 1994. 
 
“12.  On November 4th, 1994, the Grievance Committee’s investigating 
attorney had a conversation with Respondent.  Mr. McClure said he had sent no 
response as he had never received the materials sent by the Grievance Committee.  
On the same day, the grievance materials were faxed to Respondent.  Respondent 
failed to appear at the November 14, 1994 hearing when the panel and Mrs. Hay 
were present and ready to proceed on her complaint.  After waiting twenty (20) 
minutes for Respondent, the hearing was conducted. 
 
6
 
“* * * 
“Count III 
 
“13.  On February 6, 1992, Respondent was sanctioned by the Supreme 
Court of Ohio for failing to comply with the provisions of Gov.Bar Rule X, 
Attorney Continuing Legal Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘CLE’) for the 
1989-1990 reporting period.  Respondent was to pay a fee of One Hundred and 
Fifty Dollars ($150.00) by March 9, 1992. 
 
“14.  Respondent was sanctioned for the 1991-1992 reporting period and 
ordered to pay a sanction fee of Four Hundred and Sixty Dollars $460.00) by May 
16, 1994.  As of May 10, 1995.  this fee has not been paid, nor has Respondent 
completed his CLE requirements. 
 
“* * * 
“Count IV 
 
“15.  Respondent has registered late for four (4) out of the last five (5) 
biennia: 
“BIENNIUM 
 
DUE DATE 
 
DATE PAID 
LATE 
1985/1987  
 
09/01/85 
 
 
09/13/85 
 
2 weeks 
1987/1989  
 
09/01/87 
 
 
09/30/87 
 
1 month 
 
7
1989/1991  
 
09/01/89 
 
 
03/02/92 
 
30 months 
1991/1993  
 
09/01/91 
 
 
03/04/92 
 
6 months 
 
“Respondent was not registered to practice law for over three (3) years 
during the past five (5) biennia. 
 
“* * * 
“MITIGATING FACTORS 
 
“16.  During the time periods covered by the formal complaint, Respondent 
experienced personal, financial, and health difficulties.” 
 
Based on the stipulations, the panel concluded that respondent had violated 
DR 6-101(A)(3) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) in connection with Counts I and II, DR 
1-102(A)(6) and Gov.Bar R. X in connection with Count III, and DR 1-102(A)(6) 
in connection with Count IV.  In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, 
the panel considered the personal, financial and health difficulties respondent had 
experienced during the events at issue, including his excessive alcohol 
consumption that has since ceased, his severe and often immobilizing gout, his 
low income on which he had been barely “getting by,” and his lack of health 
insurance.  The panel also considered that respondent had practiced law for nearly 
twenty-eight years with no prior disciplinary problems and that his transgressions 
 
8
were of a relatively minor nature; however, it recognized that respondent’s health 
and financial problems could prevent him from practicing law in an efficient and 
professional manner. 
 
Balancing the caliber of respondent’s misconduct and the need to protect the 
public, the panel recommended that respondent receive a two-year suspension 
from the practice of law, but that the entire sanction period be suspended on the 
following conditions of probation: 
 
“(1)  Respondent [shall] meet no less that monthly with a monitor to be 
chosen by Disciplinary Counsel * * * [to] discuss the progress of all Respondent’s 
pending matters; (2) Respondent * * * [shall] maintain sobriety; [and] (3) 
Respondent * * * [shall] pay all sanctions imposed by the Supreme Court for the 
registrations and [continuing legal education] problems], and * * * [shall] bring 
current, and keep current all registrations and [continuing legal education 
requirements].” 
 
The board adopted the panel’s report, including its findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation.1   
 
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
9
 
David Bernard McClure, pro se. 
 
Per Curiam.  Upon review of the record, we agree that respondent violated 
DR 1-102(A)(6) and 6-101(A)(3), as well as Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G) and X as 
charged in Counts I through IV of the complaint.  We also agree with the sanction 
recommended by the board.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio for two years; however, both years of the sanction 
period are suspended and respondent is placed on probation under the conditions 
established by the board.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY AND PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., dissent. 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  Respondent’s conduct, in the aggregate, warrants an 
indefinite suspension.  I therefore respectfully dissent. 
 
MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
 
                                          
 
1  While the board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, its 
report does not specify the misconduct found by the panel in connection with 
Count IV of the complaint.