Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Allanson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. ALLANSON. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Allanson (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Failing to pursue 
clients’ interests — Misrepresentation to client about status of a claim — 
Failing to cooperate in current and previous disciplinary investigations. 
(No. 98-753 — Submitted June 10, 1998 — Decided September 30, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-78. 
 
On October 15, 1996, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a three-count 
complaint charging respondent Charles S. Allanson III of Cleveland, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0025428, with violating three Disciplinary Rules and 
one Rule for the Government of the Bar.  Respondent, who was served with the 
complaint as provided in Gov.Bar R. V(6)(E), failed to answer or otherwise plead, 
and the relator filed a motion for default.  The matter was heard by a panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board”). 
 
On the basis of the allegations of the complaint and the exhibits and 
affidavits attached to relator’s motion, the panel found that in October 1989, 
respondent conducted a meeting with some former employees of  American 
Photocopy Equipment and Supply Company.  He was retained by several of the 
employees, including Thomas U’Ren, John Armstrong, and Brian Dunaway, who 
each paid him a $40 fee, to pursue their claims against the company for unpaid 
compensation.  Respondent filed proofs of claim in the company’s bankruptcy 
case for several of the employees, but not for U’Ren, Armstrong, and Dunaway.  
Nevertheless, when contacted by U’Ren, respondent assured him that he was 
pursuing his claim. 
 
2
 
The employees for whom respondent filed a claim received a portion of 
their unpaid wages from the bankruptcy, but U’Ren, Armstrong, and Dunaway 
received nothing.  Respondent initially denied that he had been retained by U’Ren 
and Armstrong and then failed to cooperate in relator’s investigation. 
 
The panel found that with respect to his representation of U’Ren, 
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and with respect to 
U’Ren, Armstrong, and Dunaway, respondent violated DR 2-110(A)(3) (a lawyer 
who withdraws from employment shall refund any portion of a fee that has not 
been earned) and 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted 
to him).  The panel also found that respondent’s failure to cooperate with relator 
violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall refuse to assist in an investigation 
or hearing).  Finally, the panel noted that in  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Allanson 
(1995), 72 Ohio St.3d  228, 648 N.E.2d 1340, respondent had been publicly 
reprimanded for his failure to cooperate in an investigation, and in In re Report of 
Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn. (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1426, 655 N.E.2d 1311, 
he was suspended from the practice of law for failure to comply with continuing 
legal education requirements.  We also note that in July 1997, we found 
respondent in contempt of this court and suspended him.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Allanson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 1436, 680 N.E.2d 1011.  The panel recommended 
that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  The board 
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Martin J. Murphy and Cathleen M. Bolek, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
3
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  
Respondent’s failure to pursue his clients’ interests, his misrepresentation to 
U’Ren about the status of a claim, and his failure both in this instance and on 
previous occasions to cooperate in relator’s investigation warrant the suspension.  
We therefore adopt the recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.