Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Godbey

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Godbey, 94 Ohio St.3d 416, 2002-Ohio-1239.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. GODBEY. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Godbey (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 416.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglect of entrusted 
legal matters — Intentionally failing to seek lawful objectives of clients 
— Failing to carry out contracts for professional employment — 
Prejudicing or damaging clients during course of professional 
relationship — Withdrawing from employment before taking reasonable 
steps to avoid prejudice to client and delivering to client all property to 
which client is entitled — Entering into a business transaction with a 
client with differing interests without client’s consent after full disclosure 
to client — Continuing multiple employment where judgment for one 
client will be adversely affected by representation of another client — 
Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 01-1223 — Submitted November 13, 2001 — Decided March 6, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-54. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On August 7, 2000, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a 
three-count complaint charging respondent, James D. Godbey of Toledo, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0014101, with several violations of the Code of 
Professional Conduct.  After respondent answered the complaint, relator filed an 
amended complaint adding three new counts of attorney misconduct.  Respondent 
did not answer the amended complaint.  The matter was referred to a panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline for ruling on relator’s 
motion for default on Counts 4, 5, and 6 of the amended complaint and for 
summary judgment on Counts 1, 2, and 3. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Based on the allegations of the original complaint, respondent’s answers, 
and the evidence submitted with the motion, the panel granted relator’s motion for 
summary judgment and default.  In so doing, the panel made the following 
findings of fact. 
 
On December 20, 1996, respondent filed a suit on behalf of his client, 
Janice E. Luft, for personal injuries incurred by Luft in January 1995.  
Respondent failed to forward to his client interrogatories served on him by the 
defendant and failed to respond to discovery.  Instead, on July 25, 1997, he filed a 
voluntary dismissal of the action and did not inform Luft.  Respondent failed to 
refile the action within one year and Luft lost her claim.  The panel concluded that 
respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an 
entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not intentionally fail to seek 
the lawful objectives of a client), 7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail to carry out 
a contract for professional employment), and 7-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not 
prejudice or damage his client during course of professional relationship). 
 
The panel also found that Joseph F. Arthur had engaged respondent to 
handle a bodily injury claim and had been assured by respondent that the matter 
would be submitted to the insurance company in early 1999.  Arthur was 
thereafter unable to contact respondent.  Although Arthur provided respondent 
with documentation, respondent did not open a file on Arthur.  The panel 
concluded that respondent’s inaction also violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 
7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3). 
 
In addition, the panel found that after Charles Sweezer employed 
respondent to handle a personal injury claim resulting from an automobile 
accident, Sweezer was unable to contact respondent.  Sweezer obtained the 
services of another attorney to represent him, but respondent did not reply to the 
request of Sweezer or his new attorney to forward the file.  Eventually, the second 
attorney reconstructed the file and settled Sweezer’s case.  The panel found that in 
January Term, 2002 
3 
this matter, respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), 
7-101(A)(3), and 2-110(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not withdraw from employment 
before taking reasonable steps to avoid prejudice to the client and delivering to 
the client all property to which the client is entitled). 
 
Based on the allegations of the amended complaint, which the respondent 
failed to answer, and the evidence submitted in support, the panel found that in 
June 1995, respondent filed a suit on behalf of Samuel Fields, Jr., and thereafter 
ceased to communicate with Fields.  Respondent failed to supply Fields with any 
information concerning the claim and finally surrendered Field’s file to the relator 
in November 2000.  The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 
6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), and 2-110(A)(2). 
 
It also found that Teri F. Clodfelter retained respondent to represent her 
minor child in a personal injury case and provided respondent a file in the matter.  
Respondent took no action and did not return the file until November 2000, six 
months after a grievance had been filed against him. The panel concluded that in 
this instance, respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(1). 
 
The panel finally found that Chuck Hamdan employed respondent to avoid 
a default judgment and to bring a malpractice action against the attorney for the 
client who had filed the case.  Respondent failed to notify Hamdan that he was, at 
that time, representing the attorney.  For this failure of disclosure, the panel 
concluded that respondent had violated DR 5-104(A) (a lawyer shall not enter into 
a business transaction with a client unless the client has consented after full 
disclosure) and 5-105(B) (a lawyer shall not continue multiple employment if his 
judgment for one client will be adversely affected by the representation of another 
client). 
 
The panel also found that in all these matters, the respondent failed to 
cooperate in relator’s investigation and so violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
In mitigation, the panel noted that at a deposition in September 2000, 
respondent had revealed that he was suffering from a number of personal, 
professional, and physical problems.  But the panel also noted that respondent did 
not answer the amended complaint, and at the time of the motion for default, had 
not been in his office for several months and had recently missed one or more 
court appearances.  The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, 
and recommendation of the panel. 
 
On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., KLINE, CARR, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER AND LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., concurs in judgment. 
 
ROGER L. KLINE, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting for DOUGLAS, 
J. 
 
DONNA J. CARR, J., of the Ninth Appellate District, sitting for RESNICK, J. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan B. Cherry and Matthew J. Rohrbacher, for relator. 
__________________