Columbus Bar Assn. v. Schafer - 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.

Columbus Bar Association v. Schafer.
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Schafer (1994), Ohio
St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension --
Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation -- Conduct adversely reflecting on
fitness to practice law -- Collecting a clearly excessive
fee -- Neglect of an entrusted legal matter -- Failure to
seek lawful objectives of client -- Failure to carry out
contract of employment -- Conduct that prejudices or
damages client -- Failure to uphold oath of office --
Failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation.
(No. 93-2169 -- Submitted December 7, 1993 -- Decided
February 23, 1994.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 92-62.
On November 4, 1992, relator, Columbus Bar Association,
filed a two-count complaint alleging misconduct against
respondent, John Michael Schafer, last known address in
Nantucket, Massachusetts, Attorney Registration No. 0032985.
Both counts arose from the same incident, and together alleged
violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6) (conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; conduct
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law); 2-106(A)
(collecting a clearly excessive fee); 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of
legal matter entrusted); 7-101(A)(1), (2) and (3) (failure to
seek lawful objectives of client; failure to carry out contract
of employment for professional services; conduct that
prejudices or damages client); and Gov Bar R. I(7) (failure to
uphold oath of office) and V (4)(G) (failure to cooperate with
disciplinary investigation).
Count 1 alleged that Randy M. Paternoster paid respondent
a $250 retainer fee to handle a traffic matter. Paternoster
never heard from respondent again and eventually had his
driver's license suspended after respondent failed to take any
action on his behalf. Paternoster lost his job as a company
driver as a result, and was forced to undergo the additional
expense of hiring a different attorney in order to have his

license suspension set aside.
In Count 2, relator alleged that beginning on February 14,
1993, it has repeatedly tried to serve respondent with the
Paternoster grievance. Attempts to contact respondent by mail,
hand delivery and other means, however, have been futile and
respondent's whereabouts remain unknown.
Respondent's failure to answer the charges made against
him prompted relator's motion for default on March 3, 1993.
The motion was sustained on September 1, 1993 by a panel of the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the
Supreme Court. The panel subsequently found respondent, in
effect, to have committed all violations alleged and
recommended that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice
of law in Ohio. The board adopted the findings and
recommendation of the panel and also recommended that the cost
of the proceedings be charged to respondent.

Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Bruce A.
Campbell, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Per Curiam. We concur in the findings and recommendations
of the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from
the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and
F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents and would publicly reprimand
respondent.