Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bunge - 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. Bunge.
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bunge (1995), Ohio
St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Six-month suspension --
Conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty or
misrepresentation -- Conduct that adversely reflects on
fitness to practice law -- Neglect of an entrusted legal
matter -- Failure to seek client's lawful objectives --
Failure to carry out contract for employment -- Damaging
or prejudicing client -- Failing to cooperate in
investigation of charged misconduct.
(No. 94-2665 -- Submitted January 24, 1995 -- Decided
April 5, 1995.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 93-81.
Relator, Columbus Bar Association, in an amended complaint
filed September 23, 1994, charged respondent, Jerry L. Bunge of
Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0037059, with
misconduct, including violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6)
(conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or
misrepresentation, and that adversely reflects on fitness to
practice law); 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of am entrusted legal
matter); and 7-101(A)( 1), (2), and (3) (failure to seek
client's lawful objectives, failure to carry out contract for
employment, and damaging or prejudicing client). Relator also
charged respondent with failing to cooperate in the
investigation of his alleged misconduct in violation of Gov.Bar
R. V(4)(G). A panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court heard the matter
on October 28, 1994.
Respondent stipulated to all the cited violations except
the violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), and did not attend the
hearing. He also stipulated to the events underlying these
charges, as follows:
" * * * [Respondent] commenced representation of * * * a
lawyer who was seeking damages for what he believed to be his
wrongful termination or failure of employment from a Columbus
law firm * * *. [Respondent] filed a complaint * * * in the

Common Pleas Court of Franklin County; defendant filed a motion
to Dismiss; [r]espondent filed no response; and[ ] the case was
dismissed with prejudice. Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal
on behalf of [his client] and obtained three extensions for
filing a brief. He never filed a brief, and the appeal was
dismissed sua sponte on June 18, 1993, with notice to
[respondent].
"* * * Respondent had a conversation with [his client] on
or about November, 1993, at which time, [respondent] failed to
disclose * * * that he had not met the briefing requirement or
that the appeal had been dismissed.
"* * * It is stipulated that [the client] would testify
that [respondent] told him the matter had not yet been
determined because [respondent] was waiting for the [appellee]
to file its brief in the appeal, and other reasons that did not
prove to be true.
" * * * It is stipulated that [respondent] would testify
that he has no recollection of having lied to [his client] in
the manner described * * *, but would admit that he does not
recall specifcally what explanation he gave to [his client] at
that time.
" * * * [Respondent's client], through the assistance of
[other] counsel, reached a financial settlement * * * with
respondent whereby respondent agreed to pay the total sum of
$10,000.00 as full settlement of the underlying financial
malpractice case. Respondent has made payments to date and a
portion of the payment remains to be made pursuant to the
settlement."
The panel found that respondent violated the cited
Disciplinary Rules and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), as admitted, and
also that he misled his client in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).
In recommending a sanction, the panel considered that much of
respondent's misconduct reprised the already resolved
malpractice claim, and it was more troubled by respondent's
dishonesty toward his client. The panel recomended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six
months. The board adopted the panel's findings of misconduct
and its recommendation.

Bruce A. Campbell and David W. Hardymon, for relator.
Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.

Per Curiam. We have reviewed the arguments and
stipulations in this case and concur in the board's findings
that respondent violated
DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(1), (2), and
(3), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). We also agree with the
recommended sanction. Respondent is, therefore, suspended from
the practice of law in Ohio for a period of six months. Costs
taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney,
Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.