Dayton Bar Assn. v. Lewis - 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.

Dayton Bar Association v. Lewis.
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Lewis (1993), Ohio
St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Two-year suspension stayed
pending successful completion of two-year probationary
period with conditions -- Violating a Disciplinary Rule --
Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to
practice law -- Handling a legal matter without adequate
preparation -- Neglecting an entrusted legal matter --
Failing to carry out a contract of employment --
Prejudicing or damaging a client during course of
professional relationship.
(No. 93-1330 -- Submitted September 22, 1993 -- Decided
December 8, 1993.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 91-56.
On March 11, 1992, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed
an amended two-count complaint against respondent, Gordon H.
Lewis of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0023561,
alleging violations of DR 1-102(A)(1) (violating a Disciplinary
Rule), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on
one's fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(2) (handling a legal
matter without adequate preparation), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a
legal matter entrusted), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a
contract of employment), and 7-101(A)(3) (prejudicing or
damaging a client during the course of the professional
relationship). Respondent timely answered the amended
complaint and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
on November 29, 1992.
Respondent stipulated to essentially all the factual
allegations in the complaint. As to Count I, respondent was
retained by Eddie Sue Soete on September 28, 1989 to
investigate whether her husband had obtained a final decree of
divorce against her in the state of Kentucky and, further, to
pursue support for the children born of the marriage.
Respondent contacted Soete to provide him with documentation
pertaining to the case on October 13, 1989 and again on May 1,

1990; however, during the intervening period respondent failed
to return Soete's telephone calls. Respondent's next contact
with Soete was by letter dated April 8, 1991, in which he
informed her that a hearing had been set for April 30, 1991 on
a petition to register for an order of support. Respondent
failed to appear at the hearing and the petition was ultimately
dismissed for failure to prosecute.
As to Count II, respondent was retained by Lillian Fields
on August 25, 1988 to handle a case involving the possible
wrongful detention of her son. Respondent spoke with Fields
two to three weeks after their initial consultation, but failed
to return her numerous telephone calls until he received a
letter from her dated March 19, 1989, inquiring about the
status of the case. Although Fields attempted to contact
respondent on subsequent occasions, she did not succeed until
August 1991, at which time respondent explained that he had not
contacted her because he had lost all records pertaining to the
case. Thereafter, respondent interviewed Fields' son, but
canceled a subsequent meeting which he requested with Fields.
By the time of the interview, the statute of limitations for
filing suit had expired.
In mitigation, respondent testified that his misconduct
was attributable to alcoholism, that he has since stopped
drinking, and that he is currently enrolled in an alcohol
dependency program. Upon the subsequent order of the panel,
respondent submitted to a medical and psychiatric examination.
The examining physician, Dr. Arthur A. Greenfield, concluded
that respondent suffers from chronic alcoholism and that his
alcohol dependency directly resulted in his professional
misconduct. Dr. Greenfield further concluded that respondent's
prognosis for continued remission was "fair to good."
The panel found respondent guilty of each violation
alleged. It recommended that he be suspended from the practice
of law for two years, and that one year be suspended upon the
condition that he (1) continue to participate in an alcohol
dependency program and (2) participate in a practice monitoring
program prepared and supervised by relator. The board adopted
the panel's findings and recommendation of a two-year
suspension; however, it recommended that eighteen months of the
suspension be stayed, subject to the conditions recommended by
the panel.
Respondent filed objections to the board's recommendation,
arguing that the entire two-year suspension should be stayed.
In support, he states, inter alia, that he attends an alcohol
dependency program daily and that he has made the appropriate
changes to his lifestyle to render him fit to practice law.

Dennis A. Lieberman, for relator.
Robert E. Renshaw, for respondent.

Per Curiam. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we
agree with the board's findings of fact and adopt its
recommendation of a two-year suspension. However, we order
that the entire suspension be stayed pending respondent's
successful completion of a two-year probationary period under
the conditions recommended by the board. Costs taxed to
respondent.

Judgment accordingly.
A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ.,
concur.
Moyer, C.J., dissents and would order a two-year
suspension with eighteen months stayed.
F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents and would order a one-year
suspension with six months stayed.