Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Barnett

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Barnett, 91 Ohio St.3d 387, 2001-Ohio-77.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BARNETT. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Barnett (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 387.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Neglect of an 
entrusted legal matter – Failing to seek lawful objectives of client — 
Failing to carry out contract of employment — Causing prejudice or 
damage to client during course of professional relationship — Failing to 
deposit client funds in an account in which no funds of attorney are 
deposited — Failing to promptly deliver to client funds client is entitled 
to receive — Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 00-1900 — Submitted December 13, 2000 — Decided April 18, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners and Grievances of the 
Supreme Court, No. 98-85. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On August 29, 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 
filed a second amended complaint charging respondent, David C. Barnett of 
Urbana, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0027871, in twelve counts with 
numerous violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules for 
the Government of the Bar.  Respondent failed to answer the complaint, waived a 
hearing, and agreed to stipulated facts, which were presented to a panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board”). 
 
Accepting the stipulations of the parties, the panel concluded that 
respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law), 6-
101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (a 
lawyer shall not fail to seek the lawful objectives of a client), 7-101(A)(2) (a 
lawyer shall not fail to carry out a contract of employment), and 7-101(A)(3) (a 
lawyer shall not prejudice or damage a client).  These conclusions were based on 
its findings that in 1997, after having been  appointed as appellate counsel for 
Charles Rutherford, who had been convicted of aggravated assault, respondent 
failed to file an appellate brief, with the result that the appeal was dismissed.  
When questioned by relator under oath, respondent falsely claimed that he had 
filed the brief. 
 
The panel further concluded that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 
1-102(A)(6), and 9-102(A) (a lawyer shall deposit funds of a client in an account 
in which no funds of the lawyer are deposited).  The panel found that respondent 
had settled a personal injury claim for James Muller but had failed to repay to the 
United States a portion of that  recovery to which it was entitled.  When 
respondent finally issued a check from his trust fund to the United States, it was 
returned for insufficient funds. 
 
The panel also concluded that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 7-
101(A)(1), and 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver to a client the funds a 
client is entitled to receive).  The panel found that in 1998, respondent received 
$550 from John Merey to open a savings account for him but failed to do so and 
also failed to return the money when requested by Merey. 
 
The panel found that in 1999, respondent was engaged by Dawn Greene 
and paid $535 to initiate divorce proceedings for her.  He was also engaged by 
Darci L. Neville and paid $500 for the same type of proceeding.  Yet respondent 
failed in both cases to take action on behalf of his clients, and thereby violated DR 
6-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(1) and (2), and 9-102(B)(4). 
January Term, 2001 
3 
 
Finally, respondent’s client trust account was overdrawn on several 
occasions from 1997 through 1999 and during that period respondent paid 
numerous personal expenses from that account.  The panel concluded that by that 
conduct that respondent had violated DR 9-102(A). 
 
Respondent failed to respond to letters of inquiry from relator, to relator’s 
telephone calls relating to the grievances filed against him, and to a subpoena 
duces tecum issued by the board.  Hence, the panel concluded that he had violated 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (an attorney shall cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). 
 
In the absence of any mitigating evidence, the panel recommended that 
respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  The board 
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
 
We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board with one exception.  
We do not conclude that in representing Greene and Neville that respondent 
violated DR 6-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not handle a legal matter which he 
knows he is not competent to handle).  As we said in Findlay/Hancock Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Filkins (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 734 N.E.2d 764, 766, the “relator must 
prove * * * misconduct by clear and convincing evidence.”  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(J).  Our review of the stipulations and deposition of respondent indicates 
that while respondent neglected the Greene and Neville matters, nothing in the 
record clearly and convincingly shows that respondent was attempting to handle 
legal matters that he was not competent to handle.  To show a violation of  DR 6-
101(A)(1), relator should have introduced evidence to demonstrate that this solo 
practitioner with over fifteen years’ experience as a lawyer was not competent to 
handle divorce matters. 
 
Nevertheless, respondent’s other actions and failures to act are so 
substantial that we adopt the recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________