Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hayes

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. HAYES. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hayes (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Pattern of neglecting 
entrusted legal matters — Failure to cooperate in disciplinary 
investigations. 
(No. 98-2661 — Submitted February 10, 1999 — Decided April 7, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-91. 
 
On May 14, 1998, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a second amended 
complaint charging respondent, William F. Hayes of Maumee, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0023905, with violating several Disciplinary Rules and a Rule for 
the Government of the Bar.  Respondent failed to answer, and relator filed a 
motion for default judgment.  The matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) on 
the complaint, motion, and attached exhibits. 
 
The panel found that in August 1996, Joseph Stanfa paid respondent $500 to 
represent him on a breach of contract claim.  Despite assurances that he would file 
a complaint, respondent took no action on behalf of Stanfa and failed to respond to 
Stanfa’s repeated telephone calls and messages. When Stanfa discharged 
respondent and requested return of his file and $500 retainer, respondent did not 
comply.  And when Stanfa filed a grievance, respondent failed to  respond to 
relator’s investigator.  Respondent eventually returned the $500 retainer to Stanfa, 
and Stanfa retained another attorney to prosecute his breach of contract claim. 
 
In May 1997, Ben Storer, M.D., paid respondent a $2,500 retainer to 
represent him on a claim arising out of damage to his airplane.  Respondent filed 
an action in common pleas court on Dr. Storer’s behalf but subsequently dismissed 
it without Dr. Storer’s consent and without notifying him.  Despite numerous 
 
2
telephone calls and messages, respondent never communicated with Dr. Storer.  
Dr. Storer filed a grievance with relator, and respondent refused to submit a written 
response to the grievance and ignored relator’s investigator’s letters and telephone 
calls. 
 
In May 1996, Nicholas and Cynthia White retained respondent to represent 
them in their claim for damages against Ford Motor Company (“Ford”).  In 
February 1997, following numerous unsuccessful attempts by the Whites to contact 
respondent, respondent advised them that Ford had made a settlement offer, but he 
had rejected it.  The Whites told respondent that they wanted their case settled as 
soon as possible.  When further attempts to contact respondent failed, the Whites 
called Ford and discovered that Ford had made another settlement offer that 
respondent had not communicated to them.  The Whites left messages with 
respondent urging him to accept Ford’s second settlement offer, but he did not 
respond to the messages or accept the offer.  Respondent did not submit a written 
response or otherwise communicate with relator’s investigator concerning the 
grievance filed against him by the Whites. 
 
In January 1997, Olin Coutcher retained respondent to represent him 
regarding criminal charges arising out of a motor vehicle accident. At respondent’s 
request, Coutcher provided several documents to him.  Although respondent 
repeatedly advised Coutcher during his trial that he would not serve any jail time, 
Coutcher subsequently received the maximum sentence.  Coutcher and his wife 
then made several attempts to request that respondent return Coutcher’s file, but 
respondent ignored their messages.  After the Coutchers filed a grievance with 
relator, respondent failed to submit a written response or otherwise communicate 
with relator’s investigator. 
 
The panel concluded that with respect to the Stanfa matter, respondent’s 
conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 1-
 
3
102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in the investigation of a disciplinary 
proceeding).  Regarding the Storer matter, the panel concluded that respondent’s 
conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out an employment 
contract), 1-102(A)(1) (violating a Disciplinary Rule), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct in the White matter violated DR 6-
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 1-102(A)(1), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  Finally, with 
respect to the Coutcher matter, the panel concluded that by his conduct, respondent 
violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 1-102(A)(1), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
 
In mitigation, relator submitted evidence that respondent is an alcoholic who 
had recently been convicted twice of driving under the influence.  For his second 
conviction, respondent was sentenced to almost eighteen months in jail. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio and that his readmission be conditioned upon his entering 
into and complying with the conditions of a contract with the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Williams, Jilek, Lafferty & Gallagher Co., L.P.A., and David M. Mohr; 
Nathan & Roberts and W. David Arnold, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent’s pattern of neglecting entrusted legal matters coupled with 
his unwillingness to cooperate in related disciplinary investigations demonstrates 
his present unfitness to practice law and warrants an indefinite suspension from the 
practice of law.  See Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lieser (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 488, 
490, 683 N.E.2d 1148, 1149; Columbus Bar Assn. v. Emerson (1999), 84 Ohio 
 
4
St.3d 375, 378, 704 N.E.2d 238, 240.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio.  Further, because of his history of alcohol abuse, 
any readmission to the practice of law in Ohio is conditioned upon his entering into 
and complying with the conditions of a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.