Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Smith

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Smith, 120 Ohio St.3d 298, 2008-Ohio-6138.] 
 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. SMITH. 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SMITH. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Smith, 120 Ohio St.3d 298, 2008-Ohio-6138.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Multiple violations of disciplinary rules—
Indefinite suspension. 
(Nos. 2008-0760 and 2008-0763 – Submitted July 22, 2008 – Decided 
December 3, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, Nos. 07-051 and 07-083. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Rene’ Darlene Smith of Euclid, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0061284, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1993. 
{¶ 2} In case No. 2008-0760, the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline recommends that we indefinitely suspend respondent 
from the practice of law based on findings that she abandoned four clients’ cases 
and then failed to cooperate in the investigation of this professional misconduct.  
In case No. 2008-0763, the board recommends a two-year suspension, to be 
served concurrently with the indefinite suspension, based on findings that 
respondent deserted another two clients and then ignored attempts to investigate 
their grievances.  For all these ethical breaches, we indefinitely suspend 
respondent’s license to practice law. 
{¶ 3} Relators, Cleveland Bar Association and Cuyahoga County Bar 
Association, charged respondent with violations of the Code of Professional 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Responsibility, the Rules of Professional Conduct,1 and the Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) 
requirement that lawyers cooperate in disciplinary investigations.  When service 
could not be perfected at the address on file for respondent with the Office of 
Attorney Services or at a last known address, the board served the complaints on 
the Clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B) (the Clerk is the 
agent for service of process when the whereabouts of Ohio lawyers are unknown).  
Respondent failed to answer the complaints, and pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F), 
relators moved for default.  A master commissioner appointed by the board 
granted relators’ motions for default relative to charges asserted in five grievances 
that clients had filed against respondent and various violations of Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G).  The master commissioner then made findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and recommendations, all of which the board adopted.2 
I.  Misconduct 
A.  Failure to Cooperate in the Disciplinary Investigations 
{¶ 4} Regarding case No. 2008-0760, respondent failed to respond to six 
letters of inquiry that relator Cleveland Bar Association sent to investigate 
grievances filed against her.  Regarding case No. 2008-0763, respondent also did 
not respond to letters inquiring about two grievances.  The board found that 
respondent had thereby violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), and we adopt this finding. 
B.  Case No. 2008-0760 
1.  The Johnson-Butler Grievance 
{¶ 5} Glenda Johnson-Butler retained respondent in November 2006 to 
help her file for divorce.  Respondent agreed to prepare and file the necessary 
documents for a fee of $2,400, of which Johnson-Butler paid $800.  Respondent 
                                                 
1.  Events underlying relators’ complaints took place before and after February 1, 2007, the 
effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which supersede the Disciplinary Rules of the 
Code of Professional Responsibility. 
 
2.  The master commissioner and board dismissed charges stemming from Tina F. Basinger’s 
hearsay claim that respondent improperly represented Basinger’s former husband in their divorce. 
January Term, 2008 
3 
sent the divorce documents to her client, seeking signatures from both Johnson-
Butler and her husband.  They returned the papers with signatures in early 
December 2006, but respondent failed to file the documents in court. 
{¶ 6} For the rest of that December, Johnson-Butler attempted to contact 
respondent by telephone to determine the status of the divorce.  Respondent did 
not return any telephone calls.  When Johnson-Butler visited respondent's office 
in early January 2007, she found the office vacant.  Respondent did not return any 
of Johnson-Butler’s $800 or the signed documents. 
{¶ 7} For the failure prior to February 1, 2007, to conscientiously attend 
to Johnson-Butler’s divorce case, the board found respondent in violation of the 
following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility: DR 1-102(A)(6) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment), and 9-102(B)(4) 
(requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or deliver to the client funds, securities, or 
other properties that the client is entitled to receive).  We accept these findings of 
misconduct. 
2.  The Finch Grievance 
{¶ 8} Pamela Finch retained respondent in August 2006 to help her file 
for divorce.  Respondent promised Finch that she would draft the necessary legal 
documents.  Finch paid respondent $800. 
{¶ 9} By late October 2006, respondent had stopped communicating 
with Finch.  Despite Finch’s numerous telephone calls, respondent did not 
complete the work she agreed to do, nor did she return any portion of Finch’s 
$800 or paperwork.  Finch could not afford to hire a new lawyer because 
respondent did not return her money. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 10} For the failure prior to February 1, 2007, to conscientiously attend 
to Finch’s divorce case, the board found respondent in violation of DR 1-
102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 9-102(B)(4).  We accept these findings 
of misconduct. 
3.  The Johnson Grievance 
{¶ 11} Ramon Johnson and his wife retained respondent in July 2005 to 
assist them in filing for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the United States 
Bankruptcy Code.  The Department of Veterans Affairs paid the Johnsons’ legal 
fees.  Respondent thereafter made at least five appearances before the court on the 
Johnsons’ behalf. 
{¶ 12} In October 2006, however, the Johnsons lost contact with 
respondent, and in January 2007, the holder of the first mortgage on their 
residence moved for relief from the automatic stay.  The Johnsons continued 
trying to locate respondent, and when they could not, were forced to file an 
objection pro se to the first mortgagee’s motion.  Respondent failed in early 
March 2007 to appear at a hearing on the motion for relief from the stay, and the 
Johnsons proceeded without counsel. 
{¶ 13} For the neglect of the Johnsons’ case prior to February 1, 2007, 
which put them at risk of foreclosure on their family home, the board found 
respondent in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3).  For the abandonment of the Johnsons 
after February 1, 2007, the board found respondent in violation of the following 
provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct (“Prof.Cond.R.”): Prof.Cond.R. 
1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a 
client), 1.4(a)(3) (a lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of the matter), 1.4(a)(4) (a lawyer shall comply as soon as practicable with 
reasonable requests for information from the client), 8.4(d) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(h) (a 
January Term, 2008 
5 
lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness 
to practice law).  We accept these findings of misconduct. 
4.  The Respress Grievance 
{¶ 14} Alton and Ida Respress retained respondent in October 2005 to 
represent them in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding.  The Respresses received 
a letter toward the end of March 2007 from the bankruptcy court advising them 
that respondent’s electronic-filing privileges had been revoked and that she could 
no longer file documents through the court’s electronic-filing system without 
special permission.  The bankruptcy court’s letter suggested that the Respresses 
retain another attorney. 
{¶ 15} The Respresses tried to find new counsel but, as of mid-January 
2008, had not been successful.  They also tried to contact respondent after 
receiving the bankruptcy court’s letter but had no success.  The Represses later 
visited respondent’s office, only to find that she had vacated the premises.  They 
suspect that respondent kept all or part of a $1,700 fee that the bankruptcy trustee 
had approved to pay for her services. 
{¶ 16} Respondent began representing the Represses in October 2005 but 
their problems with her performance did not begin until March 2007.  For the 
abandonment of the Respresses after February 1, 2007, the board found 
respondent in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 8.4(d), and 
8.4(h).  We accept these findings of misconduct. 
C.  Case No. 2008-0763 
1.  The Testruth Grievance 
{¶ 17} Jennifer Testruth retained respondent in July 2006 to represent her 
in a divorce and custody proceeding.  Testruth paid respondent $800 toward an 
agreed-upon fee of $2,500.  Thereafter, Testruth was unable to reach respondent 
directly but left messages asking why she had not yet filed the divorce case.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
Respondent eventually returned Testruth’s call and explained that the court had 
rejected her initial filing for insufficiency. 
{¶ 18} Although respondent promised to refile the divorce complaint 
immediately, she did not do so until the end of October 2006.  Near this time, 
Testruth paid respondent another $100 to prepare an affidavit to support a request 
for a restraining order.  Respondent never moved for the restraining order, and in 
January 2007, Testruth discovered that respondent had also failed to obtain 
service of the divorce complaint on Testruth’s husband. 
{¶ 19} Testruth attempted to meet with respondent but found that she had 
vacated her office and left no forwarding address.  Testruth sent respondent a 
letter of dismissal and requested her file and a full refund, minus a $250 filing fee.  
Testruth, who eventually retained new counsel, had to proceed in her divorce 
without the original file and without the protection of a restraining order. 
{¶ 20} For the failure to conscientiously attend to Testruth’s divorce and 
custody case prior to February 1, 2007, the board found respondent in violation of 
DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4).  We accept 
these findings of misconduct. 
2.  The Davis Grievance 
{¶ 21} Cathy Davis retained respondent when her husband sued for 
divorce in 2006, paying respondent $250 toward an agreed-upon $2,500 fee.  
Respondent then did nothing for Davis.  She left Davis to obtain continuances on 
her own, failed to attend a pretrial conference, and forced Davis to appear 
unrepresented at a May 2007 hearing.  Davis has since repeatedly called 
respondent but has received no response. 
{¶ 22} For the neglect of Davis’s divorce case prior to and after February 
1, 2007, the board found respondent in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 
January Term, 2008 
7 
and 6-101(A)(3), and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 8.4(d), and 8.4(h).  We accept these 
findings of misconduct. 
II.  Sanction 
{¶ 23} In recommending a sanction, 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 
Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  As mitigating, the board found 
that except for an attorney-registration suspension, respondent has no prior history 
of discipline.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).  The board found the same five 
aggravating factors in both cases: a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, lack 
of cooperation in the disciplinary process, vulnerability of and resulting harm to 
victims of her misconduct, and failure to make restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), (h), and (i).  In addition, in case No. 2008-0760, the board 
found as aggravating respondent’s failure to acknowledge the wrongfulness of her 
conduct. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g). 
{¶ 24} In case No. 2008-0760, relator Cleveland Bar Association 
recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  
In case No. 2008-0763, relator Cuyahoga Bar Association recommended that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years, with one year 
stayed on the conditions that respondent pay restitution to Testruth and Davis and 
that she complete a one-year monitored probation of her practice during the 
stayed portion of the suspension.  The board recommended that the sanctions be 
served concurrently. 
{¶ 25} Having found clear and convincing evidence that respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 9-
102(B)(4); Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h); and Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G), we agree with the board that an indefinite suspension is warranted in 
case No. 2008-0760.  “As we have routinely explained, neglect of legal matters 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
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.  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.”  Columbus Bar 
Assn. v. Harris, 108 Ohio St.3d 543, 2006-Ohio-1715, 844 N.E.2d 1202, ¶ 22.  
See also Cuyahoga Bar Assn. v. Church, 116 Ohio St.3d 563, 2008-Ohio-81, 880 
N.E.2d 917, ¶ 15.  Moreover, we agree with the board that a two-year suspension, 
with one year stayed on conditions, is appropriate in case No. 2008-0763. 
{¶ 26} Respondent is therefore suspended indefinitely from the practice of 
law in Ohio in case No. 2008-0760 and suspended for two years, with one year 
stayed on the recommended conditions, in case No. 2008-0763, with the sanctions 
to be served concurrently.  We order respondent to pay restitution as follows 
within 30 days: $800 to Johnson-Butler, $800 to Finch, $650 to Testruth, and 
$250 to Davis, all with interest at the statutory rate.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
PFEIFER, O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON and O’CONNOR, JJ., concur but 
would require that the sanctions be served consecutively. 
__________________ 
Thompson Hine, L.L.P., and Jennifer S. Roach, for relator Cleveland Bar 
Association. 
Ellen S. Mandell, Bar Counsel, and Steven L. Gardner, for relator 
Cuyahoga County Bar Association. 
______________________