Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Young - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Cleveland Bar Association v. Young.
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Young (1993), Ohio
St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Suspended one-year
suspension with two years' monitored probation and
restitution to clients -- Neglecting an entrusted legal
matter -- Failing to assist in disciplinary investigation.
(No. 93-901 -- Submitted July 8, 1993 -- Decided
September 8, 1993.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 92-37.
On June 22, 1992, relator, Cleveland Bar Association,
filed a multiple-count complaint charging misconduct against
respondent, James C. Young of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0034227. The complaint alleged, inter alia,
violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter
entrusted), and Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G) (neglecting or refusing to
assist in disciplinary investigation). In his answer,
respondent admitted that he initially ignored inquiries made by
the Cleveland Bar Association's Certified Grievance Committee
and hence violated Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G). He denied the other
violations, as well as most of the factual allegations
underlying them.
Each count arose from accusations by clients, or their
family members, that respondent did not provide legal services
commensurate with fees paid. Counts 1 through 6 involve
respondent's representation of six defendants on unrelated
criminal matters and variously alleged: (1) inadequate
post-conviction representation, (2) missed court appearances,
or (3) misrepresentation of the duration of sentence possible
after a guilty plea. Count 7 charged respondent with failing
to take steps necessary to effectuate the transfer of a
client's son from one school district to another. Six of the
seven counts alleged that respondent repeatedly ignored
telephone calls and other requests for information relative to
the case in which the complainant was involved. All seven
counts charged respondent with failing to respond to inquiries
by the certified grievance committee regarding the alleged

misconduct.
These charges were heard by a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
on January 28, 1993. Respondent admitted that he did not
initially cooperate with the investigation commenced by the
certified grievance committee and characterized his behavior as
inexcusable. He also conceded that he sometimes neglected to
return phone calls.
Respondent vigorously denied claims that he provided
substandard representation. As to Counts 1 through 6,
respondent enumerated at length the post-conviction services he
rendered and testified that he had never misled a client into a
guilty plea or guaranteed a specific sentence in exchange for a
particular plea. As to Count 7, respondent stated that he
promptly prepared the necessary document as requested and had
his secretary notify the client that it was ready to be picked
up.
Respondent testified that over the relevant period he was
under considerable stress, attempting to deal with the birth of
a handicapped son and the resultant break-up of his marriage.
He felt that his personal traumas had made him a stronger
person and did not anticipate that his professional conduct
would ever again suffer. Respondent accepted full
responsibility for his prior actions.
In addition to numerous written character references,
respondent presented two witnesses on his behalf. Andrew L.
Johnson, Jr., respondent's former colleague, stated that
respondent functioned "very well" as a criminal attorney and
was well regarded. He testified that respondent was
"devastat[ed]" by the discovery of his son's irreversible
blindness. Respondent's former employer, Jose C. Feliciano,
characterized respondent as "very effective and capable" and
lauded respondent's courage in helping to bring a corrupt
police officer to justice.
The panel found that respondent had failed to communicate
with his clients and failed to respond to certified grievance
committee inquiries. It also found that respondent had missed
four criminal hearings, but noted that his clients were not
harmed as a result. In all but three instances, the panel
ruled that respondent's clients "received competent legal
services for very reasonable fees." The panel concluded that
"the individual counts when viewed in light of the evidence
presented, the short span of time over which the alleged
violations of the Disciplinary Rule occurred and the minimum
amount of harm caused to the public, are not as serious as they
appear on their face."
Accordingly, the panel recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of one
year. It further recommended that the sentence be suspended,
and that the respondent be placed on two years' monitored
probation. The panel also recommended that respondent make
restitution to: (1) Alice Cooper in the amount of $1,000 as to
Count 1, (2) Dorothy Robbins in the amount of $3,000 plus costs
as to Count 2, and (3) Myrna Washington in the amount of $75
plus costs as to Count 7. Finally, the board recommended that
respondent attend six hours of continuing legal education
courses on law office management during each year of his

probation.
On May 6, 1993, the board adopted the findings and
recommendation of the panel, and also recommended that the
costs of the proceeding be charged to respondent.

Joseph W. Diemert, Jr., Alan S. Belkin and Sheldon L.
Braverman, for relator.
Richard S. Koblentz, for respondent.

Per Curiam. We adopt the findings and recommendation of
the board. Respondent is suspended from the practice of law in
Ohio for a period of one year. We hereby suspend this
suspension and place respondent on two years' monitored
probation. Respondent is ordered to make restitution to Alice
Cooper in the amount of $1,000 as to Count 1. Respondent is
ordered to make restitution in the amount of $3,000 plus costs
to Dorothy Robbins as to Count 2 and to Myrna Washington in the
amount of $75 plus costs as to Count 7. Respondent is also
ordered to attend six hours of law office management continuing
legal education during each year of his probation. Costs taxed
to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E.
Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.