Title: Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Saunders

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Saunders, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5708.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-5708 
GREENE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SAUNDERS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Saunders,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-5708.] 
Attorney misconduct, including failing to comply as soon as practicable with a 
client’s reasonable request for information, failing to act with reasonable 
diligence in representing a client, and failing to cooperate in a 
disciplinary investigation — Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2010-1143 — Submitted September 15, 2010 — Decided 
November 30, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-004. 
___________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Craig William Saunders, Attorney Registration No. 
0071865, whose last known business address is in Dayton, Ohio, was admitted to 
the practice of law in Ohio in 2000.  In November 2009, we imposed an attorney-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
registration suspension for his failure to file a certificate of registration and pay 
applicable fees on or before September 1, 2009, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. 
VI, and on January 25, 2010, we imposed an interim felony suspension based 
upon his felony conviction.  See In re Saunders, 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-
Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256, and In re Saunders, 124 Ohio St.3d 1435, 2010-
Ohio-187, 920 N.E.2d 367. 
{¶ 2} On February 8, 2010, relator, Greene County Bar Association, 
filed a complaint charging respondent with four counts of professional 
misconduct.  When attempts to serve the complaint on respondent by certified 
mail at multiple addresses failed, relator served them on the Clerk of this court in 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Because respondent failed to file an 
answer to the complaint, relator moved for a default judgment on May 13, 2010. 
{¶ 3} A master commissioner appointed by the board considered the 
motion for default and prepared a report containing findings of fact and 
misconduct and recommending dismissal of multiple charges that were not 
supported by clear and convincing evidence, including all but one of the alleged 
violations in Count Four of the complaint.  The master commissioner ultimately 
recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended for his misconduct. 
{¶ 4} The board adopted the master commissioner’s report, including the 
recommended sanction, and dismissed those charges that were not supported by 
sufficient sworn or certified documentary prima facie evidence.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(F)(1)(b) and V(6)(K).  We agree that respondent has committed professional 
misconduct as found by the master commissioner and the board and that an 
indefinite suspension is warranted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} The chairman for the Greene County Bar Association Certified 
Grievance Committee investigated four complaints against respondent in 2009.  
He averred that the committee had sent letters of inquiry to respondent regarding 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
the grievances underlying each of the four counts of the complaint.  Although the 
postal service did not return as undeliverable any of the letters, respondent failed 
to respond to relator’s inquiries. 
Count One 
{¶ 6} A husband and wife hired respondent to assist them in estate-
planning matters.  Respondent prepared the necessary documents, but kept them 
in his possession.  In November 2008, the couple asked respondent to forward the 
documents to another attorney.  Their son also contacted respondent seeking 
release of the documents.  When respondent did not comply with these requests, 
the son filed a grievance on the couple’s behalf.  Because respondent never 
provided the documents, the clients had to have another attorney prepare new 
documents. 
{¶ 7} Based upon these facts, the master commissioner and board found 
that respondent had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep 
his client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a 
lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information 
from the client), and 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to 
respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an 
investigation). 
Count Two 
{¶ 8} In January 2009, another man retained respondent to represent him 
in his divorce and paid him $1,500 for his services.  Although the client attempted 
to call on at least 50 occasions, respondent did not return the calls or provide the 
client with copies of any documents filed in the case.  Respondent also failed to 
attend scheduled court proceedings, including the final divorce hearing.  Because 
the client did not have the funds to hire another attorney, he had no choice but to 
represent himself. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 9} The master commissioner and board concluded that respondent’s 
conduct with respect to this count violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to 
act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(3), and 8.1(b). 
Count Three 
{¶ 10} In March 2007, a woman hired respondent, who was the attorney 
of record for her deceased father’s estate, to prepare her father’s 2006 income tax 
returns.  Respondent did not return her phone calls, even when the client 
attempted to contact him at the Xenia Municipal Court, where he worked as an 
assistant prosecuting attorney.  On one occasion, when the client was able to 
reach respondent, he advised her that he had requested an extension of time for 
filing the tax return and that she would not have to pay a penalty—facts that the 
client avers are not true.  The client eventually retained an accountant to prepare 
the necessary tax returns and another attorney to finalize her father’s estate. 
{¶ 11} The master commissioner and the board determined that 
respondent’s conduct with respect to this count violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2) 
(requiring a lawyer to reasonably consult with his client about the means by 
which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished), 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), and 
8.1(b). 
Count Four 
{¶ 12} Count Four of relator’s complaint is based on respondent’s alleged 
neglect of another client matter.  The board, however, dismissed all but one of the 
charges in this count because, rather than submitting an affidavit of the grievant, 
relator submitted an affidavit of the grievant’s new counsel, who did not have 
personal knowledge of the facts.  See Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 104 Ohio St.3d 
448, 2004-Ohio-6560, 820 N.E.2d 318, ¶ 9 (“A motion for default in a 
disciplinary proceeding supported only by summary, conclusory, and hearsay-
filled affidavits is not supported by the prima facie evidence of misconduct 
required by Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)”).  Nonetheless, based upon the affidavit of the 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
chairman of the certified grievance committee, the board concluded that 
respondent’s failure to respond to the investigation of this grievance violated 
Gov.Bar R. 8.1(b). 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.   
{¶ 14} As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent has 
committed prior disciplinary offenses, acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, 
engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, failed to 
cooperate in the disciplinary process, and caused harm to vulnerable clients.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (h).  No mitigating factors 
were found. 
{¶ 15} We have recognized that an attorney’s neglect of an entrusted legal 
matter and failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation generally 
warrant an indefinite suspension.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 
269, 2010-Ohio-136, 921 N.E.2d 636, ¶ 10; Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 
113 Ohio St.3d 365, 2007-Ohio-2076, 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 19. 
{¶ 16} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, 
we adopt the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended 
sanction. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, Craig William Saunders is indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in the state of Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, AND CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
David R. Miles, for relator. 
______________________