Title: Columbiana Cty. Bar Assn. v. Luther

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbiana Cty. Bar Assn. v. Luther, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4196.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-4196 
COLUMBIANA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. LUTHER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Columbiana Cty. Bar Assn. v. Luther,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4196.] 
Attorney misconduct, including neglecting client matters, failing to reasonably 
communicate with clients, and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary 
investigations—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2012-0305—Submitted April 24, 2012—Decided September 19, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-087. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Richard Allen Luther, formerly of East Liverpool, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration  No. 0020164, was admitted to the practice of law in 
Ohio in 1983.  In a two-count complaint filed on October 10, 2011, relator, 
Columbiana County Bar Association, charged Luther with neglecting client 
matters, failing to reasonably communicate with his clients, failing to hold funds 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
in his client trust account until a dispute over them was resolved, failing to 
promptly refund any unearned fee upon his withdrawal from employment, and 
failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigations into the alleged misconduct. 
{¶ 2} Although the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline attempted to serve the complaint on Luther by certified mail at multiple 
addresses, those mailings were returned marked “unable to forward,” “no such 
number,” or “unclaimed.”  On December 8, 2011, the board served the complaint 
on the clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Luther did 
not answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, and relator moved for default.  
A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline made findings of fact and misconduct and recommended that 
Luther be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and be ordered to make 
restitution to the client affected by his misconduct.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s report in its entirety, and we adopt the board’s report and 
recommendation. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} In Count One of its complaint, relator alleged that in representing 
client Vicki Diddle, Luther violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act 
with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to 
reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s 
objectives are to be accomplished), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to 
comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the 
client), 1.15(e) (requiring a lawyer in possession of funds in which two or more 
persons claim an interest to hold those funds in his client trust account until the 
dispute is resolved), and 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly refund any 
unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment).  Relator further 
alleged that by failing to respond to its letters of inquiry involving the Diddle 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
grievance, Luther violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary 
authority during an investigation). 
{¶ 4} The board found that the affidavits of Columbiana County Bar 
Association Certified Grievance Committee member Tad Herold and secretary 
Ron Vest constitute clear and convincing evidence that Luther received relator’s 
letters of inquiry regarding the Diddle grievance and that he failed to respond to 
relator’s investigation in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b). 
{¶ 5} But because the only evidence of the other alleged misconduct in 
the Diddle matter consists of a hearsay-filled affidavit by Herold, the board 
recommends that we dismiss the charges alleging violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 
1.4(a)(2) through (4), 1.15(e), and 1.16(e).  See former Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1)(b);1 
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 104 Ohio St.3d 448, 2004-Ohio-6560, 820 N.E.2d 
318, ¶ 9 (rejecting sworn statement of relator’s investigator when the allegations 
of misconduct set forth in it appeared to have been gleaned entirely from 
conversations with the grievant rather than from the affiant’s personal 
knowledge). 
{¶ 6} We agree with the board’s conclusions, and thus with respect to 
Count One, we find that Luther violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and we dismiss the 
                                                 
1 Former Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F) provided:  
 
(1) Motion.  A motion for default shall contain all of the following: 
* * * 
(b) Sworn or certified documentary prima facie evidence in support of the allegations 
made. 
 
64 Ohio St.3d XCVII.  Recent amendments to Gov.Bar R. V(6) and the addition of Gov.Bar R. 
V(6a) have altered the procedure for obtaining default judgments in attorney-discipline 
proceedings initiated after August 1, 2012, to permit this court to impose interim default 
suspensions.  Because this case was initiated prior to August 1, 2012, we apply the former version 
of the rule.  See Gov.Bar R. XX(2)(LLLL). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
charges alleging violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2) through (4), 1.15(e), and 
1.16(e). 
{¶ 7} In Count Two of the complaint, relator alleged that Luther had 
committed the same rule violations as it alleged in Count One, but in relation to 
client Lori Guthrie.  Based upon Guthrie’s affidavit and the documentary 
evidence incorporated therein, the board found that in June 2010, Luther agreed to 
file a complaint for divorce on her behalf, and that by August 18, 2010, he had 
accepted $125 for his initial consultation, $2,675 for legal services, and an 
additional $299 for filing fees.  Luther did not file a divorce complaint, but on 
October 13, 2010, Guthrie’s husband did.  Although the court scheduled a series 
of pretrial hearings, Luther attended only one, and he failed to appear at the final 
divorce hearing on April 18, 2011.  Throughout his representation, Luther failed 
to return numerous phone calls, and after Guthrie filed her grievance, Luther 
advised her that he would refund some of her money, but only if she dismissed 
her grievance. 
{¶ 8} Based upon these facts, the board found that Luther had violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), (3), and (4), and 1.16(e) in his handling of the Guthrie 
matter.  But because relator presented no evidence to prove that Luther had 
removed the money he had received from Guthrie from his trust account, the 
board recommends that we dismiss the charge that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.15(e). 
{¶ 9} The board also found that the affidavits of grievance-committee 
member Herold and secretary Vest constitute clear and convincing evidence that 
Luther received relator’s letters of inquiry regarding the Guthrie grievance and 
that he failed to respond to relator’s investigations in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
8.1(b). 
{¶ 10} We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct, and we dismiss 
the charge alleging a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(e). 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} In imposing a sanction for attorney misconduct, we consider the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and (2).  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 
N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 12} The board did not find any mitigating factors in this case.  
Aggravating factors, however, include that Luther is currently under an attorney-
registration suspension, see In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Luther, 130 
Ohio St.3d 1420, 2011-Ohio-5627, 956 N.E.2d 310, he committed multiple 
offenses, and he failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (d), and (e).  In light of these factors, relator and the board 
recommend that Luther be indefinitely suspended for his misconduct.  The board 
further recommends that any future reinstatement be conditioned upon his refund 
of any unearned fees to Guthrie. 
{¶ 13} We have previously recognized that neglect of an entrusted legal 
matter coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation 
warrants an indefinite suspension, and we agree with the board that an indefinite 
suspension is warranted in this case.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 
Ohio St.3d 269, 2010-Ohio-136, 921 N.E.2d 636, ¶ 10; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 337, 2009-Ohio-764, 904 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 17; Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365, 2007-Ohio-2076, 865 N.E.2d 891, 
¶ 19. 
{¶ 14} Accordingly, Richard Allen Luther is indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio; he is further ordered to make restitution of the full 
$3,099 to Lori Guthrie within 30 days of the date of this order.  Costs are taxed to 
Luther. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Timothy A. Barry, for relator. 
______________________