Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Vild

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Vild, 106 Ohio St.3d 471, 2005-Ohio-5518.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. VILD. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Vild, 106 Ohio St.3d 471, 2005-Ohio-5518.] 
Attorneys – Misconduct – Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 
practice law – Failing to promptly return client’s property – Failing to 
cooperate in disciplinary investigation – Intentionally failing to seek 
client’s lawful objective – Intentionally failing to carry out contract of 
employment — Engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or 
misrepresentation – Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2005-0763 — Submitted June 28, 2005 — Decided November 2, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-022. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jeffrey Thomas Vild, of Oregon, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0029535, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1985.  In 1998, we 
publicly reprimanded respondent for violating DR 6-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from accepting a case that the lawyer is not competent to handle) and 6-
101(A)(3) (barring a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter).  Toledo 
Bar Assn. v. Vild (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 179, 702 N.E.2d 865. 
{¶ 2} On May 27, 2004, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed an 
amended complaint charging respondent with 12 counts of professional 
misconduct.  Respondent was served with a copy of the complaint but did not 
answer, and relator moved for default under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master 
commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline granted the motion, making findings of misconduct and a 
recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Relator failed to offer any evidence to support counts one, two, 
three, four, eight, and ten of the amended complaint.  We therefore dismiss the 
allegations in those counts under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1)(b), which requires 
“[s]worn or certified documentary prima facie evidence” in support of a motion 
for default. 
{¶ 4} The allegations in the remaining counts are discussed below. 
Count Five 
{¶ 5} Bruce Smith hired respondent to represent him in a driving-under-
the-influence (“DUI”) case and paid respondent $400.  When Smith was 
sentenced, he gave respondent his wallet for safekeeping.  After his release from 
custody, Smith tried to contact respondent to recover the wallet and his case file 
but was unable to do so.  After the Oregon Police Department told respondent that 
Smith would file a theft report if the wallet was not returned, respondent taped the 
wallet to his office door so that Smith could pick it up.  Respondent never turned 
over the case file. 
{¶ 6} The board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(6) 
(barring conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney’s fitness to practice law) 
and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring prompt payment of the client’s funds or the return of 
the client’s property in the lawyer’s possession).  (The board’s report mistakenly 
cited DR 1-102(A)(5) for count five, but the context clearly indicates that the 
board meant DR 1-102(A)(6)). 
Count Six 
{¶ 7} Tammy Chandler hired respondent in December 2000 to file a 
bankruptcy petition on her behalf.  Respondent did not file the petition for her 
until January 2003.  In the meantime, Chandler received many calls from 
creditors. 
January Term, 2005 
3 
{¶ 8} In addition, Chandler hired respondent in March 2002 to file a 
divorce complaint on her behalf.  Respondent never did so.  Chandler was unable 
to contact respondent despite trying over 100 times. 
{¶ 9} Relator asked respondent in December 2002 to reply to Chandler’s 
grievance against him.  Despite a second request, respondent did not reply in 
writing until July 2003 and did not address the divorce issue in his response.  He 
did not respond to relator’s additional inquiries about the matter. 
{¶ 10} The board found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring attorneys to cooperate with and assist in any 
disciplinary investigation). 
Count Seven 
{¶ 11} Relator asked respondent in December 2002 to reply to a grievance 
filed by Judith Show.  Despite a second request, respondent did not reply in 
writing until July 2003. 
{¶ 12} The board found that respondent had thereby violated Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G). 
Count Nine 
{¶ 13} After her husband’s death in November 1997, Joanne Garcia hired 
respondent to administer the estate.  Respondent failed to transfer certain real 
estate to her as she had requested, and the probate court in Lucas County 
scheduled a hearing on the matter.  Respondent did not attend the hearing, and 
Garcia hired another attorney to complete the work that she had already paid 
respondent to perform. 
{¶ 14} The board found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-
101(A)(1) (barring an attorney from intentionally failing to seek the lawful 
objectives of a client), and 7-101(A)(2) (barring a lawyer from intentionally 
failing to carry out a contract of employment).  The board also found that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) concerning Count Nine, but there is 
no support in the record for that finding. 
Count Eleven 
{¶ 15} Casey Antles hired respondent in July 2002 to represent her in a 
domestic-relations matter.  Respondent failed to file a shared-parenting agreement 
or child-support documents as Antles requested.  Respondent did not answer 
Antles’s telephone calls inquiring about the documents, and she eventually 
retained another lawyer to complete the work that respondent had been hired to 
perform. 
{¶ 16} Relator asked respondent in January 2004 to reply to Antles’s 
grievance against him.  Respondent did not reply or cooperate with the relator’s 
investigation. 
{¶ 17} The board found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-
101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Count Twelve 
{¶ 18} Daniel Lindesmith hired respondent to file a bankruptcy petition 
on his behalf, and he paid respondent a $620 retainer fee.  Respondent performed 
no services for Lindesmith, prompting Lindesmith to request a refund and the 
return of his case file.  Respondent never returned the money or the case file and 
did not respond when Lindesmith tried repeatedly to contact him. 
{¶ 19} Relator asked respondent in January 2004 to reply to Lindesmith’s 
grievance against him.  Respondent did not reply or cooperate with the relator’s 
investigation. 
{¶ 20} The board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) 
(barring an attorney from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), and Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G). 
Sanction 
January Term, 2005 
5 
{¶ 21} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  As 
aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had committed a previous 
disciplinary violation, had engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed 
multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, refused to 
acknowledge the wrongfulness of his actions, caused harm to vulnerable clients, 
and failed to make restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), 
and (i).  The board cited no mitigating factors. 
{¶ 22} Relator recommended that respondent’s license to practice law be 
indefinitely suspended for his misconduct.  The master commissioner and the 
board accepted this recommendation. 
{¶ 23} We agree that respondent violated all of the provisions explained 
above, and we also agree that an indefinite suspension is appropriate.  As we have 
consistently held, neglect of legal matters and the failure to cooperate in the 
ensuing disciplinary investigation warrant an indefinite suspension from the 
practice of law.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Treneff, 104 Ohio St.3d 336, 2004-Ohio-
6562, 819 N.E.2d 695, ¶ 16.  And the act of accepting retainers or legal fees and 
failing to carry out contracts of employment is tantamount to theft of the fee from 
the client.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moushey, 104 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-Ohio-
6897, 819 N.E.2d 1112, ¶ 16.  Respondent’s misconduct reflects poorly on the 
legal profession and caused harm to the clients whose legal matters he neglected. 
{¶ 24} Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and 
LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 25} Respondent has been previously disciplined for neglecting a legal 
matter entrusted to him.  Given his history, the absence of mitigation, his lack of 
cooperation, the refusal to acknowledge his wrongdoing, and his pattern of 
misconduct and failure to make restitution, I cannot understand how we can 
uphold the public’s confidence in our profession unless we disbar respondent.  
Our profession expects no less.  Accordingly, I would vote to disbar respondent. 
_______________________ 
 
Matthew J. Rohrbacher and Craig F. Frederickson, for relator. 
_______________________