Title: Cleveland Bar Assn v. Morrison

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn v. Morrison, 96 Ohio St.3d 52, 2002-Ohio-2991.] 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. MORRISON. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Morrison, 96 Ohio St.3d 52, 2002-Ohio-2991.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with entire six months 
stayed — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Failing to carry out 
contract of employment — Intentionally prejudicing or damaging client 
during course of professional relationship. 
(No. 2002-0317 — Submitted April 10, 2002 — Decided July 3, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-73. 
__________________ 
 
PER CURIAM. 
{¶1} 
In June 1999, Michael T. Vietti hired respondent, Harvey S. 
Morrison of  Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0015230, and paid him a 
$1,000 “suit fee” plus court costs of $100 to file suit against Angelo Benedetti, 
Inc. for sales commissions that Vietti claims he earned but was not paid while 
working for Benedetti.  Respondent was also to receive one-third of any recovery 
by Vietti after expenses and credit for the “suit fee.” 
{¶2} 
Respondent filed suit on behalf of Vietti in the Cuyahoga County 
Common Pleas Court.  When the defendant in the suit sent interrogatories to 
respondent, he forwarded them to Vietti to answer.  After Vietti returned the 
interrogatories to respondent with his handwritten answers, respondent said he 
would have the answers typed and submit the typewritten copy to Vietti for 
signature. 
{¶3} 
Respondent did not send the typewritten responses to Vietti for his 
signature, and Vietti could not contact respondent despite numerous attempts to 
do so.  In the meantime, the defendant in the lawsuit filed a motion for summary 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
judgment, respondent did not reply on behalf of Vietti, and in May 2000 the court 
granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. 
{¶4} 
Respondent did not inform Vietti of the summary judgment 
motion, or his failure to respond, or the court’s order granting the motion.  In fact, 
when Vietti finally was able to speak with respondent in October 2000, 
respondent told Vietti that he would send the typewritten interrogatories 
immediately, leading Vietti to believe that his case was still pending when, in fact, 
judgment had been entered against him in May 2000. 
{¶5} 
Vietti discharged respondent, and respondent returned the “suit 
fee” to Vietti. 
{¶6} 
On August 13, 2001, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging that this conduct of respondent violated several Disciplinary 
Rules.  Respondent answered, and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court. 
{¶7} 
Based on the stipulations of the parties, respondent’s answer, and 
testimony received at a hearing on December 13, 2001, the panel found the facts 
as alleged and concluded that respondent’s inaction and failure to keep Vietti 
informed of the status of his case violated DR 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 of employment), and  7-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not intentionally 
prejudice or damage his client during course of professional relationship). 
{¶8} 
In mitigation, the panel found that respondent had not previously 
been subject to a disciplinary action during his 40 years of practice and that he 
admitted his misconduct and demonstrated true remorse for it.  The panel 
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six 
months with all six months stayed.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, 
and recommendation of the panel. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
{¶9} 
Upon examination of the record, we adopt the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of six months with the entire six 
months stayed.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissents because he would stay a one-year suspension. 
__________________ 
 
Donald Cybulski and Denise L. Platfoot, for relator. 
 
Harvey S. Morrison, pro se. 
__________________