Akron Bar Assn. v. Barnett - 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

AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION V. BARNETT.
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Barnett (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Neglect of an
entrusted legal matter -- Failure to carry out contract of employment --
Unwillingness to cooperate in disciplinary process.

(No. 97-1317 -- Submitted August 26, 1997 -- Decided November 19,
1997.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-28.

On September 6, 1996, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed an amended
complaint charging respondent, Elaine A. Barnett of Akron, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0041098, with misconduct both in her handling of two client
matters and in her failure to cooperate with relator's attempts to investigate the
clients' grievances. Relator also alleged that respondent violated Rules for the
Government of the Bar by continuing to practice law after September 1993
without maintaining registration with the Supreme Court and by failing to
complete the necessary continuing legal education requirements.

Respondent failed to answer the complaint. Based on relator's motion for a
default judgment, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline ("board") found the following facts. In November, 1994 Betty Weddles
paid respondent a retainer of $100 to commence divorce proceedings. Thereafter,
respondent took no action on behalf of Weddles, failed to respond to any inquiries
by Weddles, and failed to return the $100 to her. In March 1995, Jeffrey A.
LaRose retained respondent to represent him in divorce proceedings. After a
November 1995 hearing in LaRose's case, the trial court instructed respondent to
prepare an agreed entry and necessary documents to carry out the decree. Only

after being cited by the court did respondent file the agreed entry in February
1996. However, respondent has not yet filed the quitclaim deed required by the
agreed entry. Respondent also did not cooperate with relator's attempts to
investigate the grievances filed by Weddles and LaRose.

The panel concluded that respondent's actions constituted violations of DR
6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal matter) and 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry
out a contract of employment). It also concluded that respondent's
noncooperation in relator's investigation violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), that her
continuing to practice while not in good standing because she was not registered
violated Gov.Bar R. VI, and that her failure to complete the necessary continuing
legal education requirements violated Gov.Bar R. X. The panel recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years with one year
stayed, subject to probation and conditions.

The board adopted the findings of the panel and concluded that respondent
had violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged, but declined to rule on the
violations of the Rules for the Government of the Bar. It recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years, with one year
stayed and that respondent be placed on probation under relator's monitoring. The
board also directed that respondent return to Weddles and LaRose any retainers
received from them.
__________________

George W. Rooney, Jr., Peter T. Cahoon and Tony Paxton, for relator.
__________________

Per Curiam. We adopt the findings and conclusions of the panel.
However, we find that a more severe sanction is warranted. We are not only
concerned about respondent's neglect of client matters, but we are also troubled by

2

her clear unwillingness to cooperate in the disciplinary process. The record
indicates that respondent ignored relator's numerous attempts to discuss the
grievances filed against her and actively attempted to evade the service of the
complaint. Respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.
Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, COOK and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

DOUGLAS, RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., dissent.
__________________

ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J., dissenting. I would follow the board's
recommendation and suspend the respondent for two years with one year stayed,
requiring that the respondent be placed on probation during this period.

DOUGLAS and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting
opinion.

3