Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Chandler - 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. Chandler.
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Chandler (1995), Ohio
St.3d .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Two-year suspension with a
full year of that suspension to be served and thereafter
one year of monitored probation -- Reinstatement
conditioned on full restitution, with interest, to clients
-- Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation -- Inadequate preparation --
Neglect of an entrusted legal matter -- Failure to carry
out contract for professional services.
(No. 94-2653 -- Submitted January 24,1995 -- Decided April
26, 1995.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-03.
In an amended complaint filed on July 8, 1994, relator,
Cleveland Bar Association, charged respondent, Everett Alfred
Chandler of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0030888,
with three counts of misconduct, including violations of DR
1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation), 6-101(A)(2) and (3) (inadequate
preparation and neglect of an entrusted legal matter), and
7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry out contract for professional
services). Respondent answered, denying all the alleged
misconduct, on October 3, 1994, two months late and only four
days before the matter was scheduled for hearing before a panel
of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of
the Supreme Court. Respondent also filed a motion for a
continuance with his answer, but he appeared on the October 7
hearing date and indicated to the panel that he was prepared to
proceed.
Evidence submitted to prove the allegations in Count I
established that Earl and Joyce Smedley retained respondent in
December 1989 to avert a threatened foreclosure of their home.
The Smedleys paid at least $450 in installments for respondent
to defend them in the foreclosure action and to file a petition
for relief in bankruptcy court. Thereafter, the Smedleys
received periodic notices regarding the increasingly imminent

foreclosure. They frequently contacted respondent about these
notices, but he advised them not to worry. Around August
1990, the Smedleys learned that respondent had not filed their
bankruptcy petition and that their home had been sold at a
sheriff's sale. Respondent subsequently filed a bankruptcy
petition on which he represented the signing date as September
6, 1990, even though the Smedleys had signed the petition in
December 1989.
With respect to Count II, the evidence established that
Richard A. Grant, a builder and home remodeler, paid respondent
$1,000 in November 1987 to defend him in an action brought by a
subcontractor. The subcontractor had done some carpentry for
Grant, but Grant could not pay the subcontractor because the
general contractor of the project had not paid him. Grant
knew of no discovery or other preparation by respondent before
the case went to trial, and respondent presented no
witnesses. Grant lost the case, and judgment was entered
against him in the amount of $9,587.50, with interest.
In April 1988, respondent brought suit on Grant's behalf
against the homeowners for whom Grant had subcontracted the
carpentry work. The homeowners counterclaimed, but respondent
failed to answer. Respondent also failed to attend a hearing
scheduled for October 19, 1988, which took place hours before
he filed a motion for continuance of the hearing date. On
November 10, 1988, a default judgment was entered against
Grant, and the court stated that it would set a hearing date to
determine the amount of damages to which the homeowners were
entitled.
Three years later, Grant's claim against the homeowners
was still pending in court, and the matter was scheduled again
for hearing. Respondent missed the hearing and again did not
file his motion for continuance until after the hearing was
over. Grant finally retained another attorney, who sued
respondent for professional negligence and obtained a judgment
against him for $17,900.
Evidence submitted to prove Count III of the complaint
established that Darrell Eugene Sharp, Sr., engaged respondent
in or around May 1991 to represent him in a domestic relations
case. Sharp paid respondent a $350 retainer fee. However,
respondent did not keep Sharp apprised of court dates, and he
told Sharp to bring witnesses to a hearing, but did not advise
the referee in advance so that the witnesses could testify.
Respondent showed no remorse for his conduct. He
justified his failure to file the Smedleys' bankruptcy petition
on the ground that Mr. Smedley owed him legal fees from prior
cases. This, according to respondent, placed the Smedleys in a
"hostage situation" and put him "in a position to demand monies
for services NOT paid for over the years." (Capitalization
sic.) Respondent also admitted misrepresenting the date on
which the Smedleys signed their bankruptcy petition; he
explained that "the bankruptcy court wanted a date within one
week from signing to filing the petitions." In fact,
respondent accounted for all the complaints against him in the
same way -- they were the product of "persons [who were]
unhappy when they [did] not GET THEIR WAY." (Capitalization
sic.)
From this evidence, the panel found that respondent had

violated the cited Disciplinary Rules. Respondent submitted no
evidence of good character, and he reproached his former
clients and the disciplinary process for suggesting misconduct
on his part. The panel thus found nothing to mitigate the
violations, and it noted that respondent had been publicly
reprimanded for previous misconduct in Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn.
v. Chandler (Feb. 26, 1986), Supreme Court Case No. 85-48,
unreported. 1
The majority of the panel recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years,
with eighteen months suspended, during which time respondent
should be under a monitored probation, and that respondent also
be ordered to make restitution to the Smedleys in the amount of
$450. The panel chairperson recommended a one-year
suspension. The board adopted the panel's findings of
misconduct and the recommendation of the panel majority.

Calfee, Halter & Griswold and Robert N. Rapp; Willacy &
LoPresti and Keith A. Ganther, for relator.
Everett Alfred Chandler, pro se.

Per Curiam. We have reviewed the record in this case and
concur in the board's findings that respondent violated DR
1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A) (2) and (3), and 7-101(A)(2). However,
the board's recommendation that respondent be suspended for a
period of two years from the practice of law, with eighteen
months stayed, is inappropriate for misconduct of this
severity. We, therefore, impose the recommended two-year
suspension from the practice of law in Ohio, but we order that
respondent serve a full year of that suspension period and
thereafter be on one year of monitored probation. Respondent
shall also make full restitution to the Smedleys, with interest
at the judgment rate, before his reinstatement. Costs taxed to
respondent.
Judgment accordingly
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and
Cook, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents and would suspend respondent for
eighteen months, but stay the suspension.

1. The previous order provided for respondent's indefinite
suspension from the practice of law upon a subsequent finding
of misconduct. Discipline enhancement is now governed by
Gov.Bar R. V(6)(C), which provides that prior disciplinary
offenses justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be
imposed for subsequent misconduct.