Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Kelly

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Kelly, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2715.] 
 
 
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-2715 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. KELLY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Kelly,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2715.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Neglect of entrusted legal matter—Failure to 
cooperate in disciplinary investigation—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2011-2038—Submitted January 18, 2012—Decided June 20, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-037. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Thomas R. Kelly of Lakewood, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0040319, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1988.  
On November 3, 2009, we suspended him for his failure to register as an attorney 
for the 2009-to-2011 biennium.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Kelly, 
123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256.  That suspension 
remains in effect. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} On April 11, 2011, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar 
Association, filed a three-count complaint alleging that Kelly had violated the 
Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules 
Professional Conduct in his representation of two clients and that he had failed to 
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigations.1  
{¶ 3} Although the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline served the complaint by certified mail and Kelly signed for it, he did 
not file an answer.  Consequently, relator moved the board to find Kelly in 
default. 
{¶ 4} The board appointed a master commissioner, who found Kelly in 
default and found that relator had proven by clear and convincing evidence that 
Kelly had neglected one client’s legal matter and failed to respond to the ensuing 
disciplinary investigation, but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to 
support relator’s allegations regarding a second client.  Based upon her findings 
of misconduct, the master commissioner recommended that Kelly be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law. 
{¶ 5} The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact and 
misconduct and recommends that count two of the complaint be dismissed.  
However, the board recommends that Kelly be suspended from the practice of law 
for two years, with one year stayed on the condition that he refund $1,200 to his 
client.  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct, with some 
modification, as our own, and dismiss count two of relator’s complaint.  However, 
based upon the sanctions imposed for comparable misconduct, we indefinitely 
suspend Kelly from the practice of law in Ohio. 
 
 
                                                 
1  Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before and 
after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which supersede 
the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
Misconduct 
{¶ 6} With respect to count one, the board found that in June 2009, 
Robert E. Jakubs retained Kelly to represent him in a divorce.  He paid Kelly 
$1,000 in three installments.  Kelly wrote three letters to Jakubs’s wife suggesting 
dissolution of the marriage and twice met with Jakubs to discuss the status of the 
case.  After those meetings, Kelly failed to respond to Jakubs’s telephone calls for 
three weeks.  He later spoke with Jakubs and requested an additional $200 for 
filing fees.  Jakubs paid the money but never heard from Kelly again.  Jakubs 
filed his action pro se and then hired another attorney.  Kelly has not refunded his 
money. 
{¶ 7} Although relator’s complaint charged Kelly with violations of 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as 
practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client), 1.5(a) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an 
illegal or clearly excessive fee), and 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly 
refund any unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment), the 
master commissioner and board found only that he had “neglected the 
representation of Jakubs.” 
{¶ 8} We agree that Kelly violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 but also find that he 
failed to keep Jakubs reasonably informed about the status of his matter and failed 
to comply with his reasonable requests for information in violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4).  Moreover, by collecting his fee from Jakubs and then 
failing either to perform the work or refund the money, Kelly violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) and 1.16(e).  See, e.g., Columbus Bar Assn. v. Harris, 108 
Ohio St.3d 543, 2006-Ohio-1715, 844 N.E.2d 1202 (finding that an attorney who 
received a $2,000 retainer but did not file any pleadings or return the client’s calls 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
and refunded only $860 after the representation was terminated charged an illegal 
or clearly excessive fee). 
{¶ 9} The second count of relator’s complaint alleges that Kelly 
voluntarily dismissed a malpractice action against a nursing home without his 
client’s consent and that his failure to attach a Civ.R. 10(d) affidavit of merit to 
the refiled complaint resulted in the subsequent dismissal of the action.  Relator 
alleged that Kelly’s conduct with respect to this client prior to February 1, 2007, 
violated DR 6-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from handling a matter that he is 
not competent to handle without obtaining assistance from a lawyer who is 
competent to handle it), 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting neglect of an entrusted legal 
matter), 7-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to seek the 
lawful objectives of his client), and 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment for legal services) and 
that his conduct after that date violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.4(a)(3). 
{¶ 10} The master commissioner and board, however, found that the only 
evidence submitted in support of these allegations was a certified copy of the 
malpractice complaint filed on behalf of the affected client and concluded that it 
did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Kelly committed the alleged 
misconduct.  Like the complaint in the disciplinary action, the malpractice 
complaint contains statements of the respondent’s alleged misconduct—not 
findings by a court that the alleged misconduct occurred.  Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(F)(1)(b) specifies that a motion for default shall contain “[s]worn or certified 
documentary prima facie evidence in support of the allegations made.”  We have 
previously instructed relators to submit evidence that directly establishes the 
charges of misconduct, preferably in the form of affidavits executed by the 
grievants themselves.  Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 104 Ohio St.3d 448, 2004-
Ohio-6560, 820 N.E.2d 318, ¶ 9.  And when the grievant is unavailable, we have 
stated that an affidavit executed by an investigator may suffice, provided the 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
affidavit explains why the grievant’s sworn statement is unobtainable in addition 
to reciting the investigator’s own knowledge of the alleged misconduct.  Id.  
Therefore, we adopt the board’s implicit finding that a certified copy of an 
unsworn malpractice complaint is not an adequate substitute for a grievant’s 
affidavit, and we dismiss the allegations contained in count two of relator’s 
complaint. 
{¶ 11} With regard to count three of relator’s complaint, the master 
commissioner and board found that relator had engaged in extensive efforts to 
inform Kelly of the grievance and the malpractice suit filed against him and to 
obtain his cooperation in the resulting disciplinary investigation.  Numerous 
letters mailed to the address Kelly had provided to the Office of Attorney Services 
were returned unclaimed.  Relator also attempted to hand-deliver a letter, but it 
appeared that Kelly no longer resided at his registered address.  A private 
investigator retained by relator was unable to locate Kelly. 
{¶ 12} On September 16, 2010, Kelly called relator’s office and spoke 
with Heather Zirke, assistant counsel.  He advised her that he had received a letter 
from relator regarding the Jakubs grievance and that he was aware of the 
malpractice suit against him.  He provided relator with an updated address and 
stated that he did not intend to practice law any longer.  He later spoke with 
relator’s investigator and stated that he would retain legal counsel.  Relator sent 
several letters to Kelly’s new address by regular and certified mail, notifying him 
that the board had found probable cause that he had violated disciplinary rules and 
stating relator’s intent to file a complaint with the board, but the certified letters 
were returned unclaimed, and Kelly did not respond. 
{¶ 13} Based upon these facts, the master commissioner and board found 
that Kelly had failed to cooperate with relator’s investigation, in violation of 
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) and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary 
investigation).  We adopt the board’s finding of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 14} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 
473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.   
{¶ 15} As aggravating factors in this case, we find that Kelly has refused 
to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, caused harm to a vulnerable 
client, and failed to make restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g), (h), and 
(i).  The only mitigating factor is that, except for his current attorney registration 
suspension, Kelly does not have a prior disciplinary record.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a). 
{¶ 16} The master commissioner found that an indefinite suspension was 
the appropriate sanction for Kelly’s misconduct.  The board, however, 
recommends that Kelly be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two 
years, with one year stayed on the condition that he refund the $1,200 he received 
from Jakubs. 
{¶ 17} An attorney’s neglect of an entrusted legal matter and failure to 
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation generally warrant an indefinite 
suspension. Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoff, 124 Ohio St.3d 269, 2010-Ohio-136, 
921 N.E.2d 636, ¶ 10; Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365, 
2007-Ohio-2076, 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 19.  Kelly has not only neglected a client’s 
legal matter and failed to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation; he 
has also failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of his 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
matter, failed to comply with his reasonable requests for information, and in effect 
misappropriated that client’s funds by collecting and retaining a fee without 
performing the work.  Thus, we agree that an indefinite suspension, as 
recommended by the master commissioner, is the appropriate sanction for this 
misconduct. 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, Thomas R. Kelly is indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to Kelly. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, LANZINGER, CUPP, and 
MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent and would impose a two-year 
suspension, with one year stayed on condition, as recommended by the board. 
__________________ 
Frantz Ward, L.L.P., Patrick F. Haggerty, and Andrew M. Szilagyi, for 
relator. 
______________________