Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Andrews

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Andrews, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-931.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-931 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ANDREWS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Andrews,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-931.] 
Attorney misconduct — Neglecting entrusted legal matters — Criminal 
convictions for attempted tampering with evidence and attempted 
importuning — Indefinite suspension, with no credit for time served under 
interim suspension. 
(No. 2009-1993 — Submitted December 16, 2009 — Decided March 17, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-032. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, John Robert Andrews of West Chester, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0006931, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1980.  On August 3, 2006, we suspended respondent’s license to practice law on 
an interim basis, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4), after receiving notice of his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
felony conviction.  In re Andrews, 110 Ohio St.3d 1445, 2006-Ohio-3936, 852 
N.E.2d 192. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommends that we indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to practice, with no 
credit for time served under his interim suspension, based on findings that he 
failed to perform his duties as counsel for the board of trustees of a church in a 
civil action, including failing to respond to filings in that case, and that he was 
convicted of a felony and a misdemeanor in a criminal case.  We accept the 
board’s findings of professional misconduct and the recommendation for the 
indefinite suspension of respondent’s license. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with violations 
of several Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  In its 
original complaint, relator charged respondent with two counts of misconduct, the 
first related to his representation of the church board of trustees in a civil case and 
the second concerning an indictment that charged him with several criminal 
offenses.  Relator then granted respondent’s unopposed motion for a stay of 
disciplinary proceedings until the criminal case was resolved.  Following 
respondent’s convictions in the criminal case, relator amended its complaint to 
reflect the convictions and sentence. 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulated to the facts, misconduct, and mitigating 
factors, and jointly recommended that the board impose the sanction of an 
indefinite suspension, with no credit for time served under the interim suspension.  
A three-member panel of the board heard the case and recommended that the 
board adopt the parties’ stipulated facts, misconduct, and recommendation.  The 
board adopted the findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
{¶ 5} The parties have not objected to the board’s report. 
Misconduct 
Count I – Representing the Church Board of Trustees 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
{¶ 6} The parties stipulated that in September 2002, the board of trustees 
of a church initiated a civil action in the Hamilton County Court of Common 
Pleas.  After being served with the defendants’ discovery requests, the board 
retained respondent to represent it in the matter and paid him $2,500.  Despite 
respondent’s assurance to the board that he would respond to the discovery 
requests, he never answered defendants’ interrogatories and requests for 
production of documents, or requests for admissions. 
{¶ 7} Respondent entered an appearance in the case, and he engaged in 
settlement discussions with the defendants’ counsel.  But he did not reply to the 
defendants’ request for a reply to their requests for discovery and to depose the 
board’s expert.  Nor did he respond to the defendants’ motions to compel 
discovery and for summary judgment, or inform the board about them.  The court 
scheduled a July 29, 2003 hearing on the defendants’ motion for summary 
judgment. 
{¶ 8} Near this time, the defendants made a written settlement offer, 
which respondent advised the board to accept.  After board members accused him 
of being on the defendants’ side, respondent informed several board members that 
he intended to file a motion to withdraw as the board’s counsel in the case.  
Respondent then filed the motion to withdraw, and the board requested that he 
provide a full accounting of the retainer and return the case file.  Respondent did 
not reply to the board’s request. 
{¶ 9} On July 29, 2003, the court held its scheduled hearing on the 
defendants’ motion for summary judgment and respondent’s motion to withdraw.  
The court granted respondent’s motion to withdraw as the board’s counsel, but 
denied his motion for a continuance to allow the board to retain new counsel.  The 
court also granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and ordered the 
board to pay the defendants $9,208.  The board first learned of this motion and the 
court’s decision when it received notice of the court’s judgment.  The defendants 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
subsequently initiated an action against the board members to recover the 
judgment and obtained liens on the members’ property. 
{¶ 10} Shortly after the entry of summary judgment, the board’s new 
attorney filed a motion to set aside the judgment because of respondent’s failure 
to notify the board of the hearing.  The court held a hearing on the board’s 
motion, but declined to enter a judgment at that time.  Pursuant to a subpoena 
served on respondent by the board’s new attorney, respondent appeared at the 
hearing with his case file.  The board’s counsel did not accept respondent’s file 
when he offered to provide it, and later, respondent did not reply to the board’s 
motions to compel him to produce the file.  A legal-malpractice action brought by 
the board against respondent and his former law firm was later dismissed by a 
court. 
{¶ 11} We accept respondent’s admission that in representing the church’s 
board of trustees, he violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 2-110(A)(2) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from improperly withdrawing from employment), 6-
101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to seek the lawful 
objectives of the lawyer’s client), 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
intentionally failing to carry out a contract of professional employment), and 9-
102(B)(4) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver property in the lawyer’s 
possession that the client is entitled to receive). 
Count II – Criminal Convictions 
{¶ 12} The parties stipulated that on December 15, 2004, the Hamilton 
County Grand Jury returned a five-count indictment charging respondent with 
various criminal offenses.  The indictment arose from two online conversations 
respondent had with an adult posing as a 13-year-old girl in which he solicited 
sexual activity.  In April 2006, respondent entered a no-contest plea and was 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
found guilty of attempted tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12, a 
felony of the fourth degree, and attempted importuning in violation of R.C. 
2923.02, a misdemeanor of the first degree. 
{¶ 13} The common pleas court sentenced respondent to three years of 
community control and 500 hours of community service and ordered him to pay a 
$5,000 fine and to register as a sexually oriented offender.  On appeal, 
respondent’s convictions and sentence were affirmed.  State v. Andrews, 171 Ohio 
App.3d 332, 2007-Ohio-2013, 870 N.E.2d 775, appeal not accepted for review, 
115 Ohio St.3d 1412, 2007-Ohio-4884, 873 N.E.2d 1316. 
{¶ 14} We accept respondent’s admission that his criminal conduct 
violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in illegal conduct 
involving moral turpitude) and 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging 
in conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Sanction 
{¶ 15} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we weigh 
evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10(B)(1) and 
(2) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Kaplan, 124 Ohio St.3d 
278, 2010-Ohio-167, 921 N.E.2d 645, ¶ 11. 
{¶ 16} The board did not cite any aggravating factors. 
{¶ 17} In mitigation, the board found, as the parties had stipulated, that 
respondent had no prior disciplinary record and had provided full and free 
disclosure to the board and cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d). 
{¶ 18} Although respondent’s conduct violated multiple disciplinary 
rules, we are persuaded that the lack of any aggravating factors as well as his lack 
of a prior disciplinary record and his cooperation in the disciplinary process 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
warrant the recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension with no credit for 
the time served during his interim suspension.  Cf. Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Winkfield, 107 Ohio St.3d 360, 2006-Ohio-6, 839 N.E.2d 924 (court indefinitely 
suspended attorney from the practice of law for misconduct that included 
violations of DR 1-102(A)(3), (5), and (6), 2-110(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1) 
and (2), and 9-102(B)(4)). 
{¶ 19} Therefore, we adopt the recommendation of the board.  
Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with no 
credit for time served under his interim suspension.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
John Robert Andrews, pro se. 
_______________________