Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Jones

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. JOnes, 98 Ohio St.3d 422, 2003-Ohio-1497.] 
 
 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. JONES. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Jones, 98 Ohio St.3d 422, 2003-Ohio-1497.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglect of an 
entrusted legal matter — Failing to cooperate in disciplinary 
investigation. 
(No. 2002-2184 — Submitted February 12, 2003 — Decided April 9, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-09. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Shirley Jones, Attorney Registration No. 0030085, 
whose last known address is in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, was admitted to the 
practice of law in Ohio in 1985.  Relator, Akron Bar Association, filed two 
complaints against respondent, on February 5 and July 12, 2001, respectively, 
each alleging that she had neglected a different client’s case in violation of the 
Code of Professional Responsibility and that she had failed to cooperate in 
relator’s investigation of this misconduct.  Respondent was served with and 
answered the first complaint, but she did not answer the second, perhaps because 
she had relocated in the interim unbeknown to relator.  Relator thus served the 
second complaint on the Clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(11)(B). 
{¶2} 
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline treated 
the second complaint as an amendment of the first one and scheduled the entire 
cause for a hearing before an appointed three-member panel.  After a prehearing 
conference in which respondent did not participate despite relator’s having sent 
notice to her at four different possible addresses, the panel chairperson directed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
relator to engage an investigator to determine respondent’s whereabouts.  The 
investigator discovered respondent’s new address, and relator left notice of the 
hearing at her residence.  According to the chairperson, respondent later contacted 
the chairperson to confirm her new address, and the panel rescheduled the hearing 
to accommodate her.  Notice of the new hearing date was served on respondent at 
her new address.  Notwithstanding these efforts, respondent did not attend the 
hearing. 
{¶3} 
The panel found that in 1999, a client living in California retained 
respondent to do some legal work in connection with his father-in-law’s estate.  
Respondent and the client spoke about the case by telephone, and the client paid 
respondent $625 for her services.  According to the client, respondent did not 
complete the requested work, and he asked her to refund his money.  Respondent 
apparently agreed to repay all but $50 of her fees, but she never did.1  The panel 
found that respondent had thereby violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an 
entrusted legal matter). 
{¶4} 
The panel also found that in 1999, another client retained 
respondent to settle the estate of her husband.  The client paid respondent a 
$1,000 retainer and $118 in filing fees.  To the client’s knowledge, respondent did 
little if anything on the case, and the client eventually had to hire another attorney.  
The client tried to contact respondent on numerous occasions to obtain her case 
file and a refund.  She left voice mails, sent a certified letter, and finally went to 
respondent’s office.  The client was ultimately able to secure her case file, but 
respondent never refunded the client’s money.  The panel found that respondent 
had thereby again violated DR 6-101(A)(3). 
{¶5} 
The panel further found respondent in violation of Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) (failure to cooperate in an investigation of misconduct).  During the 
                                                 
1 Respondent was served with notice of the deposition at which this client provided his testimony 
for the panel hearing, but she did not attend. 
January Term, 2003 
3 
investigation of these grievances, relator persistently attempted to contact 
respondent about the events leading to the two complaints and the consolidated 
hearing.  Almost all of these efforts were unsuccessful because respondent 
ignored relator’s telephone calls and certified and regular mailings. 
{¶6} 
In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel 
considered as a mitigating factor the fact that respondent had no prior history of 
discipline.  The panel noted respondent’s reference to health and other personal 
difficulties in her answer to the first complaint, but it also observed that she had 
not presented any evidence of these problems.  As an aggravating factor, the panel 
considered respondent’s nearly complete failure to participate in these 
proceedings.  The panel was also troubled by one client’s testimony that 
respondent had not repaid him any money and the representation in respondent’s 
answer that she had. 
{¶7} 
The panel recommended, consistent with relator’s suggestion, that 
respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  The board adopted 
the panel’s findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶8} 
We agree with the board.  “Neglect of legal matters and a failure to 
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation generally warrant an indefinite 
suspension from the practice of law in Ohio.”  Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder (1999), 
87 Ohio St.3d 211, 212, 718 N.E.2d 1271.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby 
suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG 
STRATTON and O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Stephen J. Pruneski and James R. Ranftl, for relator. 
__________________