Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Spector

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Spector, 121 Ohio St.3d 271, 2009-Ohio-1155.] 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. SPECTOR. 
[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Spector, 
 121 Ohio St.3d 271, 2009-Ohio-1155.] 
Attorney misconduct, including failing to act with diligence in representing a 
client and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty — Indefinite 
suspension. 
(No. 2008-2383 — Submitted January 21, 2009 — Decided March 19, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-069. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Robert S. Spector, Attorney Registration No. 
0012657, whose last registered address is in Garfield Heights, Ohio, was admitted 
to the practice of law in Ohio in 1973.  His license to practice has been under 
suspension since December 3, 2007, for failing to comply with attorney 
registration requirements.  See In re Atty. Registration Suspension of Spector, 116 
Ohio St.3d 1420, 2007-Ohio-6463, 877 N.E.2d 305. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has 
recommended that we now indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to practice, 
based on findings that he committed professional misconduct prior to his 
suspension, including failing to act on a client’s behalf with reasonable diligence 
and promptness, charging a clearly excessive fee, and acting dishonestly toward a 
client.  Moreover, respondent failed to respond during an investigation of this 
misconduct.  We agree that respondent violated ethical standards as found by the 
board and that an indefinite suspension is appropriate. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} Relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, charged 
respondent with violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules for the 
Government of the Bar.  The board attempted to serve respondent with the 
complaint at the address listed on his attorney-registration record, but it was 
returned as undeliverable.  Respondent received notice of the complaint at a 
different address, but did not answer, and relator moved for default.  See Gov.Bar 
R. V(6)(F).  A master commissioner appointed by the board granted the motion, 
making findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommending the indefinite 
suspension.  The board accepted the master commissioner’s findings of 
misconduct and recommendation. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} The board found that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 
(requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing a client), 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from charging or collecting an 
illegal or clearly excessive fee), 1.15(d) (except in circumstances not relevant 
here, requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that a client is 
entitled to receive), and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  We accept the board 
findings that respondent committed this misconduct in his attorney-client 
relationship with Crystal Szell. 
{¶ 5} Szell hired respondent in July 2007 to file a motion for relief from 
a judgment entered against her for approximately $7,000.  She paid him $320 and 
provided original documents needed for her case.  Szell called respondent some 
time later to ask why the court had not yet rendered a decision.  Respondent 
replied that the Parma Municipal Court had lost her paperwork. 
{¶ 6} Szell then contacted the court, only to learn that respondent had 
never filed a motion for relief from judgment.  When she called respondent’s 
office for an explanation, he returned her call and left a voicemail advising that 
January Term, 2009 
3 
one of his associates had failed to file the motion.  Respondent then promised to 
file the motion immediately but never did. 
{¶ 7} Though he failed to complete the services Szell paid him to 
perform, respondent never returned any of her money.  He also failed to return her 
documents or deliver her case file.  Szell ended up filing her own motion for relief 
from judgment.  The outstanding judgment against Szell has prevented her from 
securing a mortgage. 
{¶ 8} Based on the evidence set forth below, the board also found that 
respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (except in circumstances not relevant 
here, a lawyer shall not knowingly fail to respond to a disciplinary authority’s 
demand for information) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to 
cooperate during a disciplinary investigation) and VI(1)(D) (requiring a lawyer to 
update his or her attorney-registration records).  We accept the board’s findings 
that respondent committed this misconduct. 
{¶ 9} Relator made numerous unsuccessful efforts to obtain respondent’s 
response to the Szell grievance.  Though certified letters of inquiry sent to 
respondent were returned unclaimed, letters of inquiry sent by regular mail were 
not returned.  And in January 2008, respondent acknowledged receipt of a letter 
of inquiry that an investigator had hand-delivered to him.  He later promised in a 
telephone conversation that he would reply by an appointed deadline.  He did not 
do so.  Respondent further failed to update his attorney registration, which 
complicated service of process in this case. 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} Having found the cited misconduct, we must decide the 
appropriate sanction.  To that end, we weigh the aggravating and mitigating 
factors of respondent’s case.  See Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations 
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  We find 
nothing to militate in favor of lenience, but there are many aggravating factors. 
{¶ 11} Respondent’s continued indifference to his duty to register as an 
attorney impeded the service of the underlying complaint.  His failure to respond 
to investigative inquiries manifested indifference to his duty to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigations.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e).  Respondent has 
also failed to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his conduct or make any 
restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g) and (i).  Moreover, his acts and 
omissions caused harm to a vulnerable client.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h). 
{¶ 12} In Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Church, 114 Ohio St.3d 41, 2007-Ohio-
2744, 867 N.E.2d 834, we held that an indefinite suspension of a lawyer’s license 
was the appropriate sanction for a lawyer who had abandoned two clients’ cases, 
causing financial loss and inconvenience to those clients, and then failed to 
respond during a disciplinary investigation, even after a personal request from the 
investigator.  Indefinite suspension is equally appropriate here because in addition 
to having committed similar misconduct, respondent lied to his client regarding 
the status of court proceedings.  We therefore indefinitely suspend respondent 
from the practice of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 13} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Tucker, Ellis & West, L.L.P., Frank Osborne, and Karen E. Ross, for 
relator. 
______________________