Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Church

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Church, 116 Ohio St.3d 563, 2008-Ohio-81.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. CHURCH. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Church, 
 116 Ohio St.3d 563, 2008-Ohio-81.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Neglect of clients’ case—Failure to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigation—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2007-1579 – Submitted October 9, 2007 – Decided January 17, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-026. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Joseph Jeffrey Church of Solon, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0006961, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1979.  On June 20, 
2007, we indefinitely suspended respondent from the practice of law based on 
findings that he had abandoned two clients’ cases and failed to cooperate in the 
ensuing disciplinary investigation.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Church, 114 Ohio 
St.3d 41, 2007-Ohio-2744, 867 N.E.2d 834. 
{¶ 2} On April 16, 2007, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, 
filed a complaint charging respondent with several other violations of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  Respondent failed to answer the complaint, and 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(f), relator moved for default.  The Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline appointed a master commissioner.  
The master commissioner granted relator’s motion for default judgment, making 
findings of fact and conclusions of law and a recommendation, all of which the 
board adopted. 
{¶ 3} The board recommends that we impose an indefinite suspension of 
respondent’s license to practice law based on findings that he committed several 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
disciplinary violations.  On review, we adopt the board’s findings of misconduct 
and the recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
Count One – The Copen Grievance 
{¶ 4} In June, 2005, DMS Group, Inc., sued Jerred and Tommy Copen in 
the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.  Jerred Copen hired respondent to 
represent himself and Tommy.  Respondent filed an answer and a counterclaim on 
behalf of the Copens.  However, respondent eventually stopped communicating 
with the Copens, failing to inform them about court dates and to return phone 
calls.  As a result, the Copens failed to appear for a pretrial. 
{¶ 5} On June 1, 2006, DMS Group filed a motion for summary 
judgment.  Respondent did not file a response, and summary judgment was 
obtained against the Copens in the amount of $19,079.31, plus interest and court 
costs.  Also, Jerred Copen asked that respondent return his file, but respondent has 
not done so. 
{¶ 6} The board found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to seek the client’s lawful 
objectives), 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to carry 
out an employment contract), 7-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
intentionally prejudicing or damaging a client during the professional 
relationship), and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver client’s 
property in lawyer’s possession). 
Count Two – Failure to Cooperate in Disciplinary Investigation 
{¶ 7} After Jerred Copen filed a grievance against respondent, relator 
sent two letters – one by certified mail and one by regular mail – to respondent’s 
address on file with the Office of Attorney Registration to notify him of the 
grievance and request a response.  The certified letter was returned unclaimed, but 
January Term, 2008 
3 
the regular mail letter was not returned as undeliverable.  Respondent did not 
respond as requested. 
{¶ 8} Relator’s investigator also sent three letters to respondent 
requesting his participation and cooperation in the investigation of the Copen 
grievance.  Respondent did not reply to the letters.  In November 2006 and 
January 2007, relator’s investigator spoke to respondent, who promised his 
cooperation in the Copen grievance and promised to send his file to the 
investigator.  Respondent, however, did not send the file and did not appear for an 
interview with the investigator. 
{¶ 9} On April 18, 2007, relator served respondent with a copy of the 
formal complaint.  However, respondent did not file an answer to the charges in 
the complaint. 
{¶ 10} By ignoring relator’s investigative inquiries, respondent violated 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate in a disciplinary 
investigation). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 11} In recommending a sanction, the board considered the aggravating 
and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations 
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶ 12} As aggravating factors, the board found that there had been a 
pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) 
and (d).  The board also found a lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process 
and that respondent refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e) and (g).  Finally, the board considered the 
vulnerability of and resulting harm to the victims of respondent’s misconduct.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h).  No mitigating factors were found.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 13} The relator and the master commissioner recommended that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law indefinitely.  The board adopted 
this recommendation and further recommended that respondent’s suspension run 
consecutively to his current indefinite suspension. 
Review 
{¶ 14} Respondent does not challenge the board’s findings of misconduct 
or the recommended sanction.  We have reviewed the board’s record and its 
report, and we agree that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-
101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
{¶ 15} We also accept the board’s recommended sanction.  In this matter, 
respondent neglected his clients’ legal matter, ignored relator’s investigative 
inquiries into the grievance, and failed to file an answer to the charges set forth in 
the complaint.  We have already imposed an indefinite suspension upon 
respondent for virtually identical misconduct.  See Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Church, 114 Ohio St.3d 41, 2007-Ohio-2744, 867 N.E.2d 834. 
{¶ 16} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law indefinitely, and his suspension will run consecutively to his current 
indefinite suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
O’CONNOR, J., dissents and would permanently disbar respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Ellen S. Mandell and Gary S. Fishman, for relator. 
______________________