Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Rieser

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Rieser (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 143, 2001-Ohio-1306.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. RIESER. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Rieser (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 143.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with final eighteen 
months stayed — Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 
practice law — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Failing to carry 
out contract for professional employment — Prejudicing or damaging 
client during course of professional relationship — Failing to promptly 
deliver to client funds or property which client is entitled to receive — 
Refusing to assist or testify in investigation or hearing — Engaging in 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. 
(No. 01-411 — Submitted May 30, 2001 — Decided August 15, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-38. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In 1995, we publicly reprimanded respondent, David P. 
Rieser, a.k.a. David Paul Rieser, of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
0025247, for neglecting two legal matters from 1984 through 1992.  Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Rieser (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 130, 647 N.E.2d 1366.  The complaint in 
this case filed by relator, Columbus Bar Association, on June 5, 2000, charges 
that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by neglecting 
two additional client matters in 1992 and 1997.  After respondent answered the 
complaint, the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
Based on stipulations of the parties and evidence introduced at a hearing 
on November 29, 2000, the panel found that in the summer of 1997, Nickole 
Benedict, whose husband respondent had represented on other legal matters, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
asked respondent to pursue a dental malpractice case against an oral surgeon.  
Respondent gave Benedict the names of four dentists and advised her to contact 
one in order to evaluate her claim.  Later, Benedict notified respondent of a 
pending court date in a collection case filed against her by the oral surgeon.  
Respondent said he would try to make the hearing, but failed to appear; judgment 
was entered against Benedict.  Thereafter, Benedict could not contact respondent, 
although she tried repeatedly to do so, requesting the return of her file.  During 
this time, the statute of limitations passed on the dental malpractice matter. 
 
The panel found that respondent had led Benedict to believe that he was 
representing her to pursue the malpractice claim and to defend against the suit on 
an account and concluded that by his inaction respondent violated DR 1-
102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an 
entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail to carry out a contract 
for professional employment), 7-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not prejudice or 
damage his client during the course of the professional relationship), and 9-
102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client funds or property to which 
the client is entitled to receive). 
 
The panel further found that in 1992 Shelia Wood retained respondent, 
paying him a retainer of $1,500 to enforce her visitation rights with her daughter 
and reduce her monthly child support obligation.  Except for meeting once with 
the Franklin County Bureau of Child Support personnel at which time he had the 
support payments temporarily lowered, respondent took no other action and 
Wood continued to pay child support.  Except for the month of May 2000, Wood 
was without visitation rights until her daughter was married in June 2000.  In this 
eight-year period from 1992 to May 2000, respondent failed to attend scheduled 
meetings with Woods, did not, in general, respond to her phone calls or her 
letters, and, despite Wood’s requests, did not return her file or the retainer of 
January Term, 2001 
3 
$1,500 until a week before his disciplinary hearing.  Moreover, respondent failed 
to properly document the lowered child support and, as a result, Wood was not 
only required to make the scheduled payments, but also to make up the shortfall 
that occurred during the period when the payments were lowered.  She was still 
making up the shortfall at the time of the hearing before the panel.  The panel 
concluded that respondent’s conduct in the Wood matter violated DR 1-
102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4). 
 
Respondent initially failed to cooperate with relator’s investigation of 
these matters, and the parties stipulated that this failure violated Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in an investigation 
or hearing) and DR 1-102(A)(6).  In addition, the panel concluded that this failure 
violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice). 
 
The panel noted in mitigation that respondent admitted that his office 
practices needed improvement, that he failed to communicate effectively with 
clients, and that he attempted to take on too many cases.  In aggravation, the panel 
found that respondent’s prior public reprimand was based in part on an 
“overwhelming caseload,” which he had failed to reduce.  The panel 
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two 
years with the final eighteen months of the suspension stayed, that respondent be 
on probation for those two years, that he make restitution as determined by the 
relator, and that he complete ten hours of continuing legal education in office 
management, client service, ethics, professionalism, and related subjects as 
approved by the monitor appointed pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9)(A)(4).  The 
board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
 
Having reviewed the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for two years with the final eighteen months of the suspension 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
stayed.  In addition, respondent shall be on probation for the entire two years of 
his suspension and he shall make restitution to the grievants as determined by the 
relator.  Finally, respondent shall, during the first twelve months of his 
suspension, complete ten hours of continuing legal education in office 
management, client service, ethics, professionalism, and related subjects as 
approved by the monitor appointed pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9)(A)(4).  Failure of 
respondent to comply with any of the terms of this sanction will result in the 
imposition of two years of actual suspension from the practice of law.  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jill M. Snitcher McQuain, Susan C. Walker, O’Neal Saunders and Bruce 
A. Campbell, for relator. 
 
Dennis C. Belli, for respondent. 
__________________