Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Landon

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Landon, 108 Ohio St.3d 173, 2006-Ohio-546.] 
 
 
 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. LANDON. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Landon, 
108 Ohio St.3d 173, 2006-Ohio-546.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Failure to notify client of insufficient professional 
liability insurance — Neglecting an entrusted legal matter — Engaging in 
conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation — 
Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — 
Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation —  Indefinite 
suspension. 
(No. 2005-1196 — Submitted September 21, 2005 — Decided 
February 22, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances  
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-012. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David H. Landon of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0029185, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1979. 
{¶ 2} On October 21, 2004, relator Disciplinary Counsel charged 
respondent in a three-count complaint with violations of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  On October 28, 2004, relator Dayton Bar Association charged 
respondent in an amended complaint with five additional counts of professional 
misconduct.  The cases were consolidated and heard by a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  Based on the parties’ stipulations 
and other evidence, the panel made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 
recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent stipulated not only to the eight counts of misconduct 
charged in the complaints, he also stipulated to three more counts, waiving all his 
due process rights as to notice and hearing. 
Count I 
{¶ 4} Respondent has not maintained professional-liability insurance 
since November 22, 2002, and has not advised clients of this fact.  Respondent 
conceded and the board found that his conduct violated DR 1-104 (requiring a 
lawyer to notify a client if he does not carry sufficient professional-liability 
insurance). 
Counts II and III 
{¶ 5} A client paid respondent $770 to help her obtain a legal separation 
from her spouse.  Respondent neglected the case, and, in January 2003, the client 
went to respondent’s office to ask about the delay.  Respondent falsely told the 
client that he had not been able to serve the separation complaint “due to the 
holidays.”  Respondent knew at the time that he had not filed the case in court and 
had no legal papers ready with which to serve the husband.  Despite her requests, 
respondent also did not refund his client’s money. 
{¶ 6} Respondent conceded and the board found that he had violated DR 
6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting the neglect of an entrusted legal matter) and 1-102(A)(4) 
(prohibiting conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation) in 
connection with Counts II and III. 
Count IV 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 7} In September 2002, a client paid respondent $750 for help in 
securing refinancing for some real estate that she owned with a former boyfriend.  
After one month, the client asked respondent about the status of the case.  
Respondent told her that the ex-boyfriend had not responded to his first letter and 
that he would send another letter.  The client asked for a copy of the first letter, 
but respondent did not send a copy to her as he promised to do. 
{¶ 8} In December 2002, the client asked again about respondent’s 
progress.  Respondent replied that he needed to send a third letter to the ex-
boyfriend, and the client asked for copies of the letters that he had supposedly 
already sent.  Respondent told the client that he did not have the letters with him 
and that if she wanted copies, she would have to return at another time.  
Thereafter, the client repeatedly attempted without success to contact respondent, 
and respondent did not comply with her requests for a refund. 
{¶ 9} Respondent conceded and the board found that he had violated DR 
6-101(A)(3) in connection with Count IV. 
Count V 
{¶ 10} A client paid respondent $260 for legal help in an eviction case.  
Respondent did not complete the representation, nor did he refund his client’s 
money as requested.  Respondent conceded and the board found that he had 
violated DR 6-101(A)(3). 
Counts VI and VII 
{¶ 11} In April 2004, a client paid respondent $500 for help in obtaining a 
divorce.  Respondent completed the paperwork but did not file the papers in court.  
Respondent then falsely advised his client that a hearing had been scheduled in 
the case.  On the day before the hearing was supposedly to be held, respondent 
falsely advised the client that the hearing had been rescheduled.  The client 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
checked with the domestic relations court himself and discovered that nothing had 
been filed on his behalf. 
{¶ 12} After neglecting this client’s case, respondent promised to refund 
the client’s $500.  Respondent had not repaid the client as of September 2004, 
when the client filed a grievance against him. 
{¶ 13} Respondent conceded and the board found that he had violated DR 
1-102(A)(4) and 6-101(A)(3) in connection with these counts. 
Count VIII 
{¶ 14} In April 2004, a client paid respondent a $500 retainer to represent 
her in a child-support dispute.  Respondent neglected the case and did not refund 
the client’s money despite her repeated requests.  Respondent conceded and the 
board found that he had thereby violated 6-101(A)(3). 
Count IX 
{¶ 15} In October 1995, a client paid respondent $600 to file a bankruptcy 
petition on the client’s behalf.  After respondent filed the petition, the client 
reported to him that one creditor was continuing to call and send collection letters.  
Respondent falsely told his client that he had filed a motion for a contempt 
citation against the creditor.  On November 6, 1997, respondent personally paid 
the client $1,200 and falsely explained that the payment was the result of the 
contempt proceedings. 
{¶ 16} Respondent conceded and the board found that he had violated DR 
1-102(A)(4) and 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on a 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law) in connection with Count IX. 
Count X 
January Term, 2006 
5 
{¶ 17} On October 8, 2003, Disciplinary Counsel sent a letter of inquiry 
to respondent by certified mail, asking him to respond to allegations of 
professional misconduct.  A member of respondent’s office staff signed the return 
receipt, but respondent did not reply.  On October 30, 2003, Disciplinary Counsel 
sent a second letter of inquiry to respondent by certified mail.  Again, a staff 
member signed the return receipt, but respondent did not reply. 
{¶ 18} In January 2004, Disciplinary Counsel subpoenaed respondent to 
appear for his deposition on February 24, 2004.  Respondent was duly served with 
the subpoena but did not appear. 
{¶ 19} Respondent conceded and the board found that he had violated 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate in a disciplinary proceeding) 
in connection with Count X. 
Count XI 
{¶ 20} Respondent conceded and the board found that he did not register 
as an attorney or pay his registration fee on or before September 1, 2003.  
Respondent conceded and the board found that he had violated Gov.Bar R. 
VI(1)(A). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 21} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel and 
board weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the 
Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaint and Hearings Before 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  
The parties also stipulated to the following considerations. 
{¶ 22} As mitigating, the panel and board found that respondent had no 
prior disciplinary record and that after he retained counsel, he cooperated with 
disciplinary authorities completely.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  Since 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
the disciplinary proceedings commenced, respondent has refunded fees to the 
client in Counts VI and VII, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c), whom he continued to 
represent without charge until the client’s divorce was granted. 
{¶ 23} The panel and board also considered that on February 17, 2005, 
respondent entered into a three-year mental health contract with the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program (“OLAP”).  OLAP representatives assessed respondent as 
suffering from dysthymia, a low-level depression that lasts two or more years, and 
concluded that he had suffered from this condition since at least 1999.  The board 
inferred that depression contributed to at least some of respondent’s misconduct, 
another mitigating factor under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). 
{¶ 24} After his assessment, respondent sought treatment from Liz Elliott, 
a licensed marriage and family counselor, and she testified on his behalf.  Elliott 
related that she had met with respondent seven times, and she agreed that he was 
suffering from depression, which made it very difficult for him to function at a 
professional level.  As of the hearing in April 2005, respondent was continuing in 
therapy with Elliott and was attending sessions several times each month.  Elliott 
considered respondent to be a conscientious and honest person, and she believed 
that any dishonesty he had exhibited was consistent with an inability to cope with 
the pressures of his work due to his depression.  Respondent was also taking 
antidepressant medication as prescribed by his doctor. 
{¶ 25} The parties proposed that respondent receive an indefinite 
suspension from the practice of law, and the board, adopting the panel’s report, 
accepted that recommendation.  The board cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Golden, 
97 Ohio St.3d 230, 2002-Ohio-5934, 778 N.E.2d 564, in which we indefinitely 
suspended the license of a lawyer who had repeatedly neglected her clients’ cases, 
made false statements, and failed to cooperate with disciplinary authorities, but 
who suffered from depression that contributed to her wrongdoing.  Similarly, in 
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Shaman (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 196, 685 N.E.2d 518, another 
January Term, 2006 
7 
lawyer suffering from depression was indefinitely suspended because he had 
neglected nine clients, failed to cooperate, and made false statements.  Finally, the 
board cited Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 57, 676 N.E.2d 504, 
in which we indefinitely suspended a lawyer who, while suffering from 
depression, had neglected multiple clients, acted dishonestly with one client, and 
failed to cooperate initially, but who showed remorse and had made restitution. 
{¶ 26} Consistent with the parties’ suggestion, the board further 
recommended conditions for respondent’s reinstatement.  First, the board 
recommended that respondent complete his OLAP contract and continue in 
treatment as prescribed by his therapist and physician.  Second, the board 
recommended that respondent make full restitution to his clients in the stipulated 
fee amounts.  Third, the board recommended that respondent obtain and maintain 
malpractice insurance in accordance with the amount deemed sufficient in DR 1-
104, which specifies coverage of “at least one hundred thousand dollars per 
occurrence and three hundred thousand dollars in the aggregate.”  DR 1-104(A). 
Review 
{¶ 27} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-104, 1-102(A)(4), 1-
102(A)(6), and 6-101(A)(3), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and VI(1)(A), as found by 
the board.  We also agree that an indefinite suspension, with conditions, is 
appropriate. 
{¶ 28} Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  In any petition for reinstatement that he files, respondent 
shall, in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(10), show that (1) he has 
complied with and completed his OLAP contract and has continued in treatment 
as prescribed by his therapist and physician, (2) he has made full restitution, 
including interest at the judgment rate from the date of our order, to his clients in 
the stipulated fee amounts, and (3) he has obtained and maintains malpractice 
insurance “of at least one hundred thousand dollars per occurrence and three 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
hundred thousand dollars in the aggregate.”  DR 1-104(A).  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Hollencamp & Hollencamp and Arthur R. Hollencamp, for relator Dayton 
Bar Association. 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator Disciplinary Counsel  
 
Dennis A. Lieberman, for respondent. 
______________________