Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Saumer

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Saumer, 86 Ohio St.3d 312, 1999-Ohio-107.] 
 
 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SAUMER. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Saumer (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 312.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Concealing assets of an 
estate — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Abandonment of an estate 
case — Neglecting or refusing to assist or testify in a disciplinary 
investigation. 
(No. 99-832 — Submitted June 9, 1999 — Decided August 25, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-40. 
 
In June 1993, respondent, James Clark Saumer of Berea, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0016680, presented the will of Helen M. Zellers for probate and 
he and a nonattorney were appointed co-executors of the estate.  In addition, 
respondent served as attorney for the estate in probate court.  In April 1997, the 
probate court ordered the executors, including respondent, to file an accounting of 
the estate, but neither filed an account.  In July 1997, the probate court removed 
respondent and his co-executor as executors because they had failed to file the 
account.  The probate court then appointed another attorney as the successor 
administrator of the estate.  Despite the successor administrator’s request that 
respondent turn over the estate file to him, respondent never complied. 
 
In November 1997, the successor administrator filed a complaint in the 
probate court, claiming that respondent concealed assets belonging to the Zellers 
estate.  In 1998, after respondent did not appear at a hearing or offer any evidence 
accounting for $10,904.48 missing from the decedent’s estate, the probate court 
found him guilty of concealing estate assets and rendered judgment against him in 
that amount, plus penalty and interest. 
 
2 
 
After the successor administrator filed a grievance with relator, Office of 
Disciplinary Counsel, relator sent three letters of inquiry by certified mail to 
respondent and a subpoena duces tecum ordering his attendance at a deposition.  
Although respondent received all of the letters and the subpoena, he did not 
respond or attend the deposition. 
 
On June 8, 1998, relator filed a complaint charging respondent with 
violating several Disciplinary Rules and a Rule for the Government of the Bar.  
Despite respondent’s statement to relator that he would file an answer to the 
complaint, he did not, and the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) on 
relator’s motion for default judgment. 
 
The panel found the facts as previously discussed and concluded that 
respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to 
the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely 
reflecting on lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 2-110(A)(2) (withdrawing from 
employment without taking reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to 
rights of client, including delivering to the client all papers and property to which 
the client is entitled), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(2) (failing to carry out an employment contract), 7-101(A)(3) (causing 
prejudice or damage to client during course of professional relationship), and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (neglecting or refusing to assist or testify in a disciplinary 
investigation). 
 
The panel found that there was no mitigating evidence and that respondent 
had merely advised relator that he had not responded because he was too busy with 
other cases to attend to the estate and disciplinary matters.  The panel further found 
that the successor administrator had reported that respondent had abandoned two 
other probate court estate cases. 
 
3 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for a period of two years, with the second year of the suspension 
stayed and respondent placed on probation, including monitoring, and further 
conditioned upon respondent’s full cooperation in the resolution of the estates he 
had abandoned.  The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel, but 
instead recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and John K. McManus, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Generally, neglect of legal matters and a failure to cooperate in the 
ensuing investigation warrant an indefinite suspension.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Rollins (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 408, 410, 704 N.E.2d 1210, 1211.  There are no 
circumstances that require a departure from the foregoing rule in this case.  As the 
board concluded, respondent’s concealment of assets, neglect, and abandonment of 
the estate case compounded by his total lack of cooperation with and respect for 
the disciplinary process require an indefinite suspension.  Respondent is hereby 
indefinitely suspended 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.