Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Meros

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Meros, 89 Ohio St.3d 304, 2000-Ohio-158.] 
 
 
 
 
1 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MEROS. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Meros (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 304.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Continued pattern of 
neglect of client matters — Failure to cooperate with disciplinary 
investigation — Prior disciplinary record. 
(No. 99-2261 — Submitted April 11,  2000 — Decided July 12, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-105. 
 
On August 25, 1998, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed an 
amended complaint charging respondent, Thomas L. Meros of Cleveland, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0005345, with disciplinary violations in seven separate 
matters. 
 
Unable to locate respondent, relator served notice of filing the amended 
complaint on the Clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  
When respondent failed to answer, relator filed a motion for default judgment. 
 
A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”) considered the matter and found that since 1991, 
respondent had failed to represent several clients adequately.  In January 1991, 
respondent contacted Margaret Stychno’s attorney and offered to help with 
 
 
2
Stychno’s pending legal malpractice case, stating that he had “dirt” on one of the 
defendants.  Shortly thereafter, respondent entered his appearance for Stychno 
without her knowledge or prior permission, and Stychno’s original attorney 
withdrew from the case.  In February 1991, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the 
malpractice case was granted.  Respondent, however, did not tell Stychno of the 
dismissal and avoided meeting with her despite the several attempts she made to 
contact him.  Two weeks before the scheduled trial date, respondent informed 
Stychno that he was preparing for trial.  In August 1991, respondent finally told 
Stychno of the dismissal on the day the trial was to begin. 
 
The panel further found that Gordon McCarthy paid respondent $10,000 and 
orally agreed to pay a further contingent fee in return for filing a lawsuit in the 
United States District Court in Massachusetts.  After the suit was dismissed on a 
motion for summary judgment, McCarthy paid respondent an additional $3,000 to 
file an appeal.  Respondent filed a notice of appeal on May 10, 1995, but the court 
of appeals later dismissed the appeal for failure to file a timely brief. 
 
The panel also found that in April 1993, Karen Skinner retained respondent 
to represent her in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.  Respondent did 
not prepare for trial, did not appear for depositions, did not respond to discovery 
orders, failed to file briefs, and did not keep Skinner informed of the progress of 
the case. 
 
 
3
 
The panel found that in May 1994, Cheri Harmon-Klein paid respondent a 
retainer of $2,000 to represent her in several matters.  However, respondent’s 
failure to research and document Harmon-Klein’s claim against her previous 
employer, KPMG, which admitted owing Harmon-Klein back commissions of over 
$3,147, resulted in no recovery against the company.  His failure to respond within 
time limits resulted in Harmon-Klein’s case against C & S Computer Services 
being dropped.  In September 1994, Harmon-Klein paid respondent $5,000 to file a 
legal malpractice claim.  Respondent filed the suit, but thereafter failed to pursue 
the action or communicate with Harmon-Klein.  Sometime in 1996, respondent 
dismissed Harmon-Klein’s malpractice action and her suit against KPMG without 
her knowledge or consent.  After respondent was discharged by Harmon-Klein, he 
failed to return the retainers as she had requested. 
 
The panel found that in March 1997, Edward Drozdowski paid respondent a 
retainer of $19,500 “to represent him in filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action against a 
former attorney.” (Sic.)  Respondent filed an appropriate motion to appear pro hac 
vice in the case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of 
Florida; however, that court denied respondent’s motion and treated the matter as 
though Drozdowski had proceeded pro se.  Respondent took no further action, did 
not communicate with Drozdowski, and refused to return the retainer. 
 
 
4
 
In addition, the panel found that Leo A. Walter and John D. Hayes paid 
respondent a $1,000 retainer to represent them in the Cuyahoga County Court of 
Common Pleas.  After respondent filed the case, he failed to appear or 
communicate with Walter or Hayes.  The case was eventually dismissed because 
“Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to show.” 
 
Finally, the panel found that after respondent filed a complaint for Norman 
Durma in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in 
March 1997, he failed to contact Durma, and failed to appear at a court-ordered 
status conference, with the result that the court dismissed Durma’s case without 
prejudice. 
 
Based on these facts, the panel concluded that in the Stychno, McCarthy, 
and Skinner matters, respondent violated DR 5-101(A) (a lawyer shall not accept 
employment where his professional judgment on behalf of his client will be 
affected by his own financial or personal interest), that in the Stychno matter 
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), and that in the McCarthy, Skinner, 
Harmon-Klein, Drozdowski, Walter-Hayes, and Durma matters respondent 
violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to 
him). 
 
 
5
 
Finding that respondent failed to cooperate with the disciplinary 
investigation in the Stychno, McCarthy, Skinner, and Durma matters, the panel 
concluded that in those cases respondent also violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (a 
lawyer shall cooperate in an investigation of attorney misconduct).  The panel 
found no mitigating circumstances and recommended that respondent be given an 
indefinite suspension.  The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the 
panel, but based on his continuing pattern of misconduct, his total lack of 
cooperation, and his prior disciplinary record (see 83 Ohio St.3d 222, 699 N.E.2d 
458), recommended that respondent be disbarred. 
__________________ 
 
Steven M. Ott and Gary S. Fishman, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings of the board, except the finding that 
respondent brought an action under Section 2255, Title 26, U.S.Code against 
Drozdowski’s former attorney.  Such an action is in the nature of habeas corpus 
and was, in fact, brought against the United States of America.  We adopt the 
conclusions of the board and its recommendation.  Respondent’s continued pattern 
of neglect of client matters together with his failure to cooperate with relator’s 
investigation indicates that respondent will not conform to the ethical standards of 
the legal profession.  See Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lieser (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 8, 
 
 
6
693 N.E.2d 766.  Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of 
law in Ohio.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.