Title: Medina Cty Bar Assn. v. Muhlbach

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

MEDINA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MUHLBACH. 
[Cite as Medina Cty Bar Assn. v. Muhlbach (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with sanction stayed on 
conditions — Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 98-721 — Submitted May 27, 1998 — Decided September 23, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-50. 
 
On November 21, 1996, relator, Medina County Bar Association, informed 
respondent, P. Michael Muhlbach of Parma, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
0058412, by mail that a grievance had been filed against him by Annette Carruth, 
and that Carol Conrad Reiter, Esq. had been assigned as relator’s investigator for 
the matter.  The letter requested respondent’s cooperation, but did not ask that he 
contact the investigator.  In a January 22, 1997 letter to respondent, Reiter stated 
that she had been unable to contact him by telephone and asked him to respond 
either by telephone or in writing to Carruth’s grievance. 
 
On May 12, 1997, respondent mailed a “Response to Complaint” to relator 
with a cover letter stating, “I had originally been informed by the office of Carol 
Conrad Reiter, that all charges had been dismissed regarding me.”  The “Response 
to Complaint,” which was not filed with the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”), was directed to a 
complaint signed by the chairman of relator’s grievance committee on April 14, 
1997, but not filed with the board until May 27, 1997. 
 
Relator charged in Count One of its complaint that respondent had violated 
DR 1-102(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not violate a Disciplinary Rule) and 6-101(A)(3) 
(a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him) in his representation of 
Carruth in a divorce matter.  Relator charged in Count Two of the complaint that 
 
2
respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by failing to cooperate in relator’s 
investigation. 
 
Respondent’s unfiled “Response to Complaint” denied any violation of the 
Disciplinary Rules in his representation of Carruth and denied that he violated 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  His “Response to Complaint” further indicated that before 
he could prepare a written response to Reiter, he had received a letter from her 
office, stating “that all charges against me had been dropped.” 
 
On September 23, 1997, relator filed a motion for default judgment for the 
reason that respondent had not filed a timely answer to the complaint.  A panel of 
the board considered the motion, and found with respect to Count One that 
Carruth indicated that she had difficulty contacting respondent, and that 
“[r]espondent indicate[d] he had difficulty in contacting Mrs. Carruth.”  The panel 
concluded that it was not satisfied by clear and convincing evidence that 
respondent had violated a Disciplinary Rule. 
 
However, the panel found by clear and convincing evidence with respect to 
Count Two that respondent failed to cooperate with relator in the investigation of 
the Carruth grievance, and concluded that he had violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  In 
mitigation, the panel stated that it could not conclude that the complaint relating to 
Carruth that relator was investigating had merit. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law for six months with the suspension stayed on the condition that he not be 
found, in the future, to have violated any Disciplinary Rule.  The board adopted 
the findings and conclusions of the panel, and recommended that respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law for six months with the six-month suspension 
stayed and that respondent be placed on six months’ probation, on the condition 
that he not be found, in the future, to have violated any Disciplinary Rule. 
 
3
__________________ 
 
Carol Conrad Reiter and Patricia A. Walker, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  As a 
member of the bar, respondent is expected to know the Rules for the Government 
of the Bar.  Gov.Bar R. V(6)(E) provides that within twenty days after the mailing 
of the notice of a disciplinary complaint, the respondent shall file six copies of his 
or her answer and serve a copy of that answer on counsel of record named in the 
complaint.  Although respondent mailed a  “Response to Complaint” to relator on 
May 12, 1997, that document was not properly filed with the board after the 
mailing of the notice of the complaint on June 16, 1997.  Respondent was 
therefore in default, and the board properly granted the motion for default 
judgment. 
 
Respondent’s allegation that he had  been advised by relator that all charges 
against him had  been dropped was not properly brought before the board and, 
even if it could be considered, does not excuse compliance with the procedural 
requirement of filing an answer to the complaint. 
 
Recently, in Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Vala (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d  57, 693 
N.E.2d 1083, where the board found no disciplinary violation, but found a failure 
to cooperate in the investigation of the grievances, we imposed a one-year 
suspension with the entire year stayed, during which time respondent was to be on 
probation.  In this case, respondent’s failure to communicate promptly with the 
relator led to the filing of the complaint and, as in Vala, the needless expenditure 
of time and money.  As we said in Vala, “[r]elator might not have filed this 
complaint had respondent been forthcoming when first advised of the grievances.”  
Id. at 59, 693 N.E.2d at 1084. 
 
4
 
We adopt the recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby 
suspended from the practice of law for six months with the six-month suspension 
stayed, during which time respondent shall be on probation, on condition that no 
further disciplinary complaints be certified against respondent during the 
probationary period.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.