Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Jefferson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. JEFFERSON. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jefferson (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Ignoring orders of 
Supreme Court — Continuing to practice law while under suspension. 
(No. 98-757 — Submitted  June 10, 1998 — Decided September 30, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-84. 
 
On September 21, 1995, respondent, James Jefferson, Jr. of Cleveland, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0032871, was suspended from the practice of law 
and ordered to pay a $600 sanction for failure to comply with the Gov.Bar R. X 
continuing legal education requirements for the 1992-1993 reporting period.  In re 
Report of the Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn., James Jefferson, Jr. (1995), 73 
Ohio St.3d 1464, 654 N.E.2d 1276.  The order suspending respondent also noted 
that he had failed “to pay a previous court-ordered sanction for noncompliance in 
a previous reporting period.”  In addition, respondent failed to timely register with 
the Clerk of the Supreme Court as required by Gov.Bar R. VI(1) for the three 
biennia 1989/1990, 1991/1992, and 1993/1994, and failed to register at all for the 
two biennia 1995/1996 and 1997/1998. 
 
Upon being advised by a judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court that  after 
September 21, 1995, respondent represented parties in sixteen cases in that 
tribunal, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, attempted to contact respondent.  
The law firm whose address respondent had listed with the Clerk of the Supreme 
Court advised relator that respondent had not been at that firm for over two years.  
Relator found that the respondent’s residence telephone had been disconnected. 
 
In addition,  relator discovered that after September 1995, respondent 
continued to practice law in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Division 
 
2
of Domestic Relations, by representing the defendant in Zama v. Zama, case No. 
D245834.  Relator also discovered that in February 1997, respondent was charged 
with passing two bad checks, that he failed to appear in court, and that the Euclid 
Municipal Court issued warrants for his arrest.  The arrest warrants remain 
outstanding. 
 
On October 13, 1997, relator filed a three-count complaint charging that 
respondent’s conduct violated several Disciplinary Rules.  After unsuccessfully 
attempting to serve respondent at his last known address, relator served the 
complaint on the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio as authorized by Gov.Bar R. 
V(11)(B).  When respondent failed to answer or plead within the time prescribed 
by rule, relator filed a motion for default, and the matter was heard by a panel of 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board”). 
 
The panel found the facts as stated and concluded with respect to counts one 
and two that by practicing law after being suspended respondent had violated DR 
1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-
102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting upon the attorney’s ability to 
practice law), and 3-101(B) (practicing law in a jurisdiction where to do so would 
violate the regulations of the jurisdiction).  The panel concluded with respect to 
count three that by failing to appear in response to the charges of passing bad 
checks and by having outstanding warrants for his arrest, respondent had violated 
DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6).  The panel concluded with respect to count four that by 
practicing law after failing to register as required by Gov.Bar R. VI(1), respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and 3-101(B). The panel recommended that respondent 
be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  The board adopted the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
 
3
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Absent any mitigating circumstances, the penalty for ignoring orders of 
the court and continuing to practice law while under suspension is disbarment.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Chavers (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 441, 687 N.E.2d 415, and 
cases cited therein.  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.