Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Saumer

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Saumer, 94 Ohio St.3d 329, 2002-Ohio-887.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SAUMER. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Saumer (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 329.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Neglect of an entrusted 
legal matter — Failing to carry out contract for professional 
employment — Failing to promptly deliver to client funds or property to 
which the client is entitled — Neglecting or refusing to assist or testify in 
a disciplinary investigation or hearing. 
(No. 01-1578 — Submitted October 16, 2001 — Decided February 20, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-95. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On August 25, 1999, we indefinitely suspended respondent, 
James Clark Saumer, now residing in North Olmsted, Ohio, Attorney Registration 
No. 0016680, from the practice of law for neglecting and abandoning cases in 
probate court.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Saumer (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 312, 715 
N.E.2d 124.  On December 4, 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed 
a complaint charging that respondent, by neglecting three other matters, again 
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent failed to answer, 
and relator’s motion for default was referred to Master Commissioner Harry W. 
White. 
 
Based upon the allegations of the complaint and evidence submitted by 
relator, the master commissioner found that after respondent filed a personal 
injury suit for Luann Dobson in September 1998, he failed to obtain service, and 
the case was dismissed in April 1999.  Nevertheless, respondent informed Dobson 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
that the case had been filed and would probably settle.  Respondent did not reply 
to the inquiries of successor counsel after Dobson terminated her relationship with 
respondent in December 1999. 
 
The master commissioner also found that respondent neglected his duty 
with respect to the estate of his mother, Vivian L. Saumer, by failing to transfer 
certain real estate, failing to file a proper inventory, and failing to file a final 
account.  As a result, respondent’s sister was removed as the fiduciary. 
 
Similarly, respondent was cited by the probate court in May 1997 for 
failure to file an account in the estate of Kay Weber.  As a result, the Cuyahoga 
County Probate Court removed the co-executors, and the Ohio Department of 
Taxation assessed a penalty against the estate for a nineteen-month delay in filing 
the estate tax return.  The penalty was abated by the successor administrator. 
 
Finally, the master commissioner found that respondent failed to cooperate 
in the investigation of his conduct and failed to comply with the order of 
suspension we issued in 1999. 
 
The master commissioner concluded that respondent’s failures to act 
violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct 
adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (a 
lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall 
not fail to carry out a contract for professional employment), 9-102(B)(4) (a 
lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client funds or property to which the client is 
entitled), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or 
testify in a disciplinary investigation or hearing).  Based on respondent’s prior 
neglect and these similar matters of neglect, the master commissioner 
recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  The 
board adopted the findings and conclusions of the master commissioner but not 
January Term, 2002 
3 
his recommendation.  The board concluded that respondent’s conduct did not 
warrant a disbarment and recommended an indefinite suspension instead. 
 
We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for an indefinite period.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  Because I would adopt the sanction recommended 
by the master commissioner, I respectfully dissent.  I would disbar respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Gloria J. Sigman, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________