Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dewey

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dewey, 98 Ohio St.3d 418, 2003-Ohio-1495.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. DEWEY. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dewey, 98 Ohio St.3d 418, 2003-Ohio-1495.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Conduct adversely 
reflecting on fitness to practice law — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter 
— Two previous professional disciplines. 
(No. 2002-2177 — Submitted February 12, 2003 — Decided April 9, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-20. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Ronald D. Dewey of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0061193, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in May 
1993.  On April 8, 2002, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging respondent with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  
Respondent was served with the complaint but did not answer, and relator filed a 
motion for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master commissioner 
appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reviewed 
the motion and made the following findings. 
{¶2} 
A married couple retained respondent in 1998 to defend them 
against a lawsuit filed in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.  They each 
attested that respondent did not provide them notice of various events, including 
the fact that discovery had been requested, that their responses were overdue, and 
that their depositions had been scheduled.  Moreover, when the trial court ordered 
the couple to appear on contempt charges, respondent did not advise them to 
attend.  According to the master commissioner’s findings, respondent also failed 
to advise his clients that a mediation conference had been scheduled, that his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
clients had been cited for contempt, and that respondent had paid a $900 fine on 
their behalf.  Relator’s complaint made these allegations, but relator offered no 
evidence to prove them.  Thus, we dismiss these allegations under Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(F)(b), which requires “[s]worn or certified documentary prima facia 
evidence” in support of a motion for default. 
{¶3} 
During the investigation of this misconduct, respondent supplied a 
number of letters to relator’s counsel that he had supposedly sent to the wife 
concerning developments in defense of the suit against the couple.  The wife 
reviewed copies of these letters, but discovered that she had received only three or 
four of them. 
{¶4} 
The master commissioner found that respondent’s representation 
of these clients violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on an 
attorney’s fitness to practice law) and 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal 
matter).  The master commissioner also found a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) 
(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) based on the 
wife’s statement that she had not received all of the correspondence that 
respondent submitted to show that he had kept her notified.  However, he also 
relied on the complaint allegation that the respondent’s original file, as transferred 
to the clients’ new attorney, did not contain such correspondence.  We consider 
the proof that respondent fabricated letters insufficient because the record does 
not substantiate this allegation. 
{¶5} 
In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the master 
commissioner considered as an aggravating circumstance that respondent had 
twice before been the recipient of professional discipline.  In Toledo Bar Assn. v. 
Dewey (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 419, 750 N.E.2d 1118, respondent was publicly 
reprimanded for having discussed his client’s case with other parties whom he 
knew to be represented by counsel, a violation of DR 7-104(A)(1).  In Toledo Bar 
Assn. v. Dewey, 96 Ohio St.3d 148, 2002-Ohio-3608, 772 N.E.2d 630, we 
January Term, 2003 
3 
suspended respondent’s license to practice law for two years, with one year stayed 
on conditions, for again having violated DR 7-104(A)(1).  And to further 
aggravating effect, both of the prior cases were resolved through motions for 
default because respondent failed to answer those complaints, just as he failed to 
do here. 
{¶6} 
The master commissioner recommended that respondent be 
suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.  The board adopted his findings 
of misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶7} 
On review, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and 
6-101(A)(3).  We also agree that respondent’s repeated infractions and his failure 
to respond to ethics charges warrant an indefinite suspension.  Respondent is 
therefore suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed 
to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG 
STRATTON and O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Catherine G. Hoolahan, William C. Eickholt, Jonathan B. Cherry and 
Robert S. Salem, for relator. 
__________________