Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Connors

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Connors, 89 Ohio St.3d 370, 2000-Ohio-165.] 
 
 
 
 
 
1
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. CONNORS. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Connors (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 370.] 
Attorneys at law —  Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — 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. 
(No. 99-2232 — Submitted March 8, 2000 — Decided July 19, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-19. 
 
On April 6, 1998, and as amended on October 14, 1998, relator, Columbus 
Bar Association, filed a complaint charging respondent, John J. Connors, Jr., of 
Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0031717, with several violations of the 
Disciplinary Rules.  Respondent answered, and a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) 
heard this matter on August 30, 1999. 
 
As to Counts One and Six, we had suspended respondent from the practice 
of law on July 1, 1997, because he had not satisfied all the conditions of a previous 
suspension.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Connors (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 1432, 680 
 
 
2
N.E.2d 1008.  Respondent learned of this suspension on July 2, 1997, during his 
regular perusal of our announcements in our Public Information Office, and 
received official notice of this suspension on July 10, 1997, by certified mail. 
 
Our order found respondent to be in contempt of this court.  We suspended 
respondent “until such time as respondent purges himself of contempt, pays 
publication costs including any accrued interest, files an application for 
reinstatement and is reinstated by this court.”  We further ordered respondent to 
“immediately cease and desist from the practice of law in any form” and forbade 
him from “appear[ing] on behalf of another before any court, judge, commission, 
board, administrative agency, or other public authority.”  We also ordered 
respondent, within thirty days from the date of the order, to “[n]otify all clients 
being represented in pending matters * * * of his suspension and his consequent 
disqualification to act as an attorney * * * [and] notify the clients to seek legal 
service elsewhere,” notify opposing counsel, and “file a notice of disqualification 
of respondent with the court or agency before which the litigation is pending for 
inclusion in the respective file or files[.]”  We, further, ordered respondent to 
“[r]efund any part of any fees or expenses paid in advance that are unearned or not 
paid * * *.”  We reinstated respondent on September 25, 1997.  Columbus Bar 
Assn. v. Connors (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 1404, 684 N.E.2d 699. 
 
 
3
 
In Count One, respondent had undertaken, before July 1, 1997, to represent 
John R. Ennis in a criminal matter pending before Judge Deborah P. O’Neill in the 
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.  The court scheduled a pretrial hearing 
in that case for July 24, 1997.  Respondent did not notify Ennis of respondent’s 
suspension before the hearing and did not advise Ennis to secure another attorney 
to represent himself. 
 
Instead, respondent talked with Judge O’Neill’s bailiff, Karen Moore, on 
July 23, one day before the scheduled pretrial hearing.  Respondent advised her 
that, while he was under suspension, he anticipated that this court would soon 
transmit facsimile documents to Judge O’Neill, notifying her about the lifting of 
the suspension.  Respondent admitted at the panel’s hearing that no one from the 
Supreme Court had given him any reason to expect this to occur. 
 
In any event, Judge O’Neill, who saw respondent that day, directed Moore to 
learn about respondent’s status.  Moore learned from this court that we had not 
granted respondent’s motion for reinstatement and we had not lifted his 
suspension. 
 
At the pretrial hearing the next day, Judge O’Neill confronted respondent, 
who still maintained that we had reinstated him.  Judge O’Neill stepped off the 
bench and telephoned a representative of this court, who informed Judge O’Neill 
 
 
4
that we had not reinstated respondent and that we were not about to transmit a 
facsimile document to that effect. 
 
Judge O’Neill opened the record to inform Ennis that respondent was under 
suspension and that Ennis must hire another attorney.  In this exchange, Judge 
O’Neill learned that respondent had not informed Ennis of the suspension. 
 
The panel found that respondent had misrepresented his status as an attorney 
to Judge O’Neill and Bailiff Moore.  The panel, consequently, concluded that 
respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
 
In Count Six, respondent, in March 1997, began representing Victor Turner, 
who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, to secure Turner’s release from 
prison.  Respondent received a payment of $500 on March 5, 1997, $5,000 on July 
9, 1997, and $1,000 on July 28, 1997, for this representation.  Respondent knew of 
his suspension when he received the latter two payments.  Respondent negotiated 
the checks, which were for services not yet rendered, and deposited them in his 
personal checking account.  He did not refund the payments to Turner. 
 
On three occasions during his suspension, respondent gained admission to 
the prison to confer with Turner by completing forms indicating that respondent 
 
 
5
was Turner’s attorney.  Respondent did advise Turner verbally of respondent’s 
suspension but did not notify him in writing, certified return receipt requested, as 
required in our July 1 order. 
 
The panel found that respondent misrepresented his status as an attorney to 
the prison authorities to gain access to Turner and that he continued to practice law 
during his suspension by accepting payments totaling $6,000.  The panel 
concluded that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), and 1-
102(A)(6). 
 
As to Count Three, Robin Moses hired respondent to represent her in a 
wage-garnishment action.  This action arose from a judgment obtained by her 
former landlord for rent and for damages to her apartment occurring after she 
abandoned the apartment but before the lease term expired.  Moses’s mother had 
paid respondent $350 for this representation. 
 
Respondent, in interviewing Moses, had not learned from her that she had 
quit the apartment before the lease term had expired.  He first learned about this at 
the disciplinary hearing.  Respondent filed a motion for relief from judgment and 
answer.  He, however, did not support the motion with legal authority and did not 
present evidence in a form authorized under Civ.R. 56(E) sufficient to establish a 
meritorious defense.  The panel concluded that, under these circumstances, 
 
 
6
respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to 
him). 
 
Relator dismissed Counts Four and Five; the panel dismissed Count Two. 
 
The panel, agreeing with relator, recommended that we indefinitely suspend 
respondent from the practice of law.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of 
fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. 
__________________ 
 
Bruce A. Campbell, Kristy J. Swope and Stanley D. Ross, for relator. 
 
John J. Connors, Jr., pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  We hereby indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law.  
Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., 
concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., not participating.