Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Foster

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Foster, 97 Ohio St.3d 292, 2002-Ohio-6415.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. FOSTER. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Foster, 97 Ohio St.3d 292, 2002-Ohio-6415.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Repeatedly taking 
clients’ money without performing promised legal services — Failing to 
cooperate in investigation of misconduct — Failing to comply with a 
previous order indefinitely suspending license to practice law. 
(No. 2002-1107 — Submitted August 27, 2002 — Decided December 4, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-03. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
This case requires us to decide the sanction for an attorney who 
repeatedly took his clients’ money without performing promised legal services, 
failed to cooperate in the investigation of his misconduct, and did not comply with 
a previous order suspending indefinitely his license to practice law in Ohio.  The 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found that respondent, 
Thomas Joseph Foster of Bexley, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0058540, 
committed these acts and others in violation of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility and recommended that he be disbarred.  We agree that this 
misconduct warrants disbarment. 
{¶2} 
In a complaint filed on February 4, 2002, relator, Columbus Bar 
Association, charged respondent with nine counts of professional misconduct.  
Respondent was served with the complaint but did not answer, and relator moved 
for default.  See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master commissioner for the board 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
considered the motion and made the following findings of fact and conclusions of 
law. 
I. Misconduct 
A 
{¶3} 
With respect to Count One, the master commissioner found that in 
February 2000, respondent accepted a $500 retainer and a $100 deposit for court 
costs to represent a client in a child-custody dispute.  Respondent did not initiate 
proceedings as promised before his license to practice law was suspended 
indefinitely on July 18, 2001, by order of Columbus Bar Assn. v. Foster (2001), 
92 Ohio St.3d 411, 750 N.E.2d 1112.  Respondent also did not contact his client 
to return her money after this suspension and did not assist the client in finding 
new counsel. 
B 
{¶4} 
As to Count Two, the master commissioner found that another 
client paid respondent $375 in August 1997 to represent her in a bankruptcy.  
Respondent filed the bankruptcy petition, but the cause was later dismissed due to 
his failure to meet court deadlines, and he did not tell his client about the 
dismissal.  Respondent eventually refiled the action, but his prior misfeasance 
caused his client to have not one, but two, bankruptcy entries on her credit report. 
C 
{¶5} 
Regarding Count Three, the master commissioner found that a 
client paid respondent $500 in 1998 to represent her in a child-support 
proceeding.  Respondent apparently did nothing in the case for about 18 months.  
During this period, he also misrepresented to his client several times that a court 
date had been scheduled and later cancelled by the court.  Respondent ultimately 
returned the client’s retainer and offered to represent her pro bono, but he did not 
follow through with this representation.  And after his suspension on July 18, 
January Term, 2002 
3 
2001, respondent did not return the client’s file or assist her in finding a new 
attorney. 
D 
{¶6} 
With respect to Count Four, the master commissioner found that 
while representing an estate in probate court, respondent failed to comply with a 
1997 court order to transfer title to property. 
E 
{¶7} 
As to Counts Five and Six, the master commissioner found that 
two separate clients had each paid respondent at least $500 during March and 
May 2000 to represent them in matters involving family law.  Respondent 
apparently again did nothing for these clients before his suspension took effect on 
July 18, 2001.  And afterward, he did not return the clients’ money or files, nor 
did he assist one client in finding a new attorney. 
F 
{¶8} 
Regarding Count Seven, the master commissioner found that a 
client paid respondent $850 in March 2000 for representation in a child custody 
and a contempt case.  Respondent appeared in court for the client but did nothing 
on the client’s behalf except secure continuances of two hearing dates.  The client 
claims that she was never able to contact respondent again.  The client also 
averred that when she appeared in court without respondent on November 2, 
2000, the judge advised the client to discharge him and file a grievance.  
Respondent never returned the client’s money or file. 
G 
{¶9} 
With respect to Count Eight, the master commissioner found that a 
client’s mother paid respondent a $500 retainer in the fall of 1999 to represent her 
son in a criminal case.  The son ran away from home shortly before a court date 
scheduled for January 2, 2000.  The client’s mother averred that respondent 
appeared in court to obtain a continuance.  He also advised the client’s mother at 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
that time that he could not do more on the case until her son was found.  But by 
the time the son returned, the mother was unable to find respondent, and her son 
had to rely on a public defender. 
H 
{¶10} Finally, as to Count Nine, the master commissioner found that 
respondent has failed to respond to relator’s letters inquiring about these eight 
grievances.  Each letter, save one, was sent by certified and regular mail to 
respondent’s business address as on file with the Office of Attorney Registration.  
The one letter sent only by regular mail, which concerned the client described 
under subsection A, was returned, marked “Attempted Not Known.”  The other 
letters were not returned and presumably were delivered.  The certified letters 
were either accepted by someone at the business address or were returned without 
signature.  Relator also sent an investigator to respondent’s residence.  When no 
one answered the door, the investigator left copies of all eight grievances and a 
subpoena for respondent’s deposition and the production of documents.  
Respondent did not comply. 
I 
{¶11} The master commissioner concluded that the conduct described in 
subsections A through H violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
misrepresentation), (5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice), and (6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney’s 
fitness to practice law); 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter); 7-
101(A)(1) (failing to seek a client’s lawful objective), (2) (failing to carry out a 
contract of employment), and (3) (prejudicing or damaging a client); 9-102(B)(4) 
(failing to deliver client’s funds or property); and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to 
cooperate in a disciplinary investigation).  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s findings of misconduct. 
II. Recommendation and Sanction 
January Term, 2002 
5 
{¶12} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the master 
commissioner determined that there was no evidence of any mitigating factors.  
See Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints 
and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  
As aggravating factors, the master commissioner considered not only that 
respondent is already serving an indefinite suspension for 17 previous instances of 
client neglect, Foster, 92 Ohio St.3d 411, 750 N.E.2d 1112, but that he has still 
not complied with various procedural requirements of that order.  The master 
commissioner recommended that respondent be disbarred.  The board adopted 
this recommendation. 
{¶13} We agree that respondent committed the misconduct found by the 
board.  We also agree with the board’s recommended sanction.  Disbarment is 
ordinarily the sanction when an attorney’s misconduct permeates his practice in 
the way that respondent’s misconduct did in this case.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Glatki (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 381, 726 N.E.2d 993.  And it is especially 
appropriate where, as here, the attorney has consistently ignored investigative 
inquiries into his neglect.  In fact, disbarment can be warranted for neglect of this 
magnitude even when an attorney has cooperated in the disciplinary process and 
has shown mitigating circumstances surrounding the misconduct.  Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Nasrallah (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 143, 761 N.E.2d 11. 
{¶14} Accordingly, respondent is permanently disbarred.  Costs are taxed 
to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Bruce Campbell, Bar Counsel, and Jill Snitcher McQuain, Assistant Bar 
Counsel; Pamela N. Maggied and Randall S. Arndt, for relator. 
__________________