Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Wolfrom

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Wolfrom, 91 Ohio St.3d 52, 2001-Ohio-283.] 
 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. WOLFROM. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Wolfrom (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 52.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Neglecting an entrusted 
legal matter — Failing to seek lawful objectives of client — Failing to 
carry out contract of employment — Prejudicing or damaging client 
during course of professional relationship — Failing to pay client monies 
to which client is entitled — Failing to cooperate in disciplinary 
investigation — Two prior disciplinary suspensions. 
(No. 00-1548 — Submitted November 15, 2000 — Decided January 31, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-03. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In 1998, relator, Columbus Bar Association, received 
several grievances concerning the professional conduct of respondent, Carl T. 
Wolfrom of San Francisco, California, Attorney Registration No. 0019564.  
Relator made numerous attempts by certified mail and by telephone to contact 
respondent about these grievances both at his former residence in Columbus, 
Ohio, and at his temporary residence in San Francisco, California.  When a 
representative of relator finally spoke to him in San Francisco, respondent told 
him that there is “nothing I can afford to do.”  On February 14, 2000, relator filed 
a four-count complaint charging respondent with violations of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility and the Rules for the Government of the Bar.  
Respondent did not answer, and the matter was referred to Master Commissioner 
Harry White for hearing and disposition.  Relator filed a motion for default with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Master Commissioner White accompanied, as required by Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F), 
with sworn statements in support of its allegations. 
 
After reviewing the motion and allegations, the master commissioner 
found that in 1995, Gary L. Detty paid respondent $5,000 to file an appeal from a 
conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and to pay for the cost of the 
trial transcript.  Although respondent filed the notice of appeal for Detty, he did 
not purchase the trial transcript and without Detty’s knowledge dismissed the 
appeal. Detty obtained a judgment against respondent, which has not been paid.  
The master commissioner also found that in 1997, Robert Triplett paid respondent 
$5,500 as an advance fee to complete the probate of his mother’s estate.  
Respondent did not secure the approval of the probate court for the fee and 
performed no services with respect to the estate. Respondent did not return any 
portion of the $5,500 to Triplett or provide an accounting to him. 
 
In addition, the master commissioner found that in 1998, Donald J. Von 
Dach paid respondent $500 to handle an insurance claim and $1,500 to handle a 
zoning matter.  Respondent took no action in either case and failed to return or 
account for the $2,000. Also in 1998, Matthew Bailey paid respondent $750 to 
represent him in a traffic case.  Respondent appeared at the initial hearing, but the 
hearing was rescheduled.  Before the rescheduled hearing, we suspended 
respondent indefinitely from the practice of law.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Wolfrom 
(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 1, 697 N.E.2d 593.  Respondent neither arranged for 
another attorney to appear for the rescheduled hearing nor refunded any of the fee 
he had received. 
 
The master commissioner concluded that respondent’s actions and 
inaction violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on 
the fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(1) (failing to seek the lawful objectives of a client), 7-101(A)(2) (failing 
to carry out a contract of employment), 7-101(A)(3) (prejudicing or damaging a 
January Term, 2001 
3 
client), 9-102(B)(4) (failing to pay to a client monies to which the client is 
entitled), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary 
investigation). 
 
Noting that respondent has been the subject of two prior disciplinary 
suspensions, in 1997 for child support default, In re Wolfrom (1997), 79 Ohio 
St.3d 1224, 681 N.E.2d 1336, and  in 1998 for dishonesty and fraud, Columbus 
Bar Assn. v. Wolfrom, supra, the master commissioner recommended that 
respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.  The Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court adopted the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the master commissioner. 
 
We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board.  
Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Terry K. Sherman, Bruce A. Campbell and Patricia K. Block,  for relator. 
__________________