Columbus Bar Assn. v. Jackson - 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

1 Columbus Bar Association v. Jackson.
2 [Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Jackson (1997), _____Ohio St.3d _____.]
3 Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Six-month suspension stayed with
4
condition of monitoring by bar association -- Failing to file Ohio
5
estate tax return and neglect of other probate matters --
6
Issuing check to client from trust account with insufficient
7
funds.
8
(No. 96-2782 -- Submitted February 19, 1997 -- Decided May 21,
9 1997.)
10
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances
11 and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-53.
12
On June 17, 1996, the Columbus Bar Association, relator, filed a
13 complaint charging respondent, Eric K. Jackson of Columbus, Ohio,
14 Attorney Registration No. 0055163, in four separate counts, with violation
15 of several Disciplinary Rules. On November 14, 1996, a panel of the Board
16 of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
17 ("board") received a stipulation of the parties, heard additional evidence,
18 and received materials related to mitigation.

1
As a result of its hearing, the panel found that in August 1995, Vida
2 Williams paid respondent $500 to represent Mark Hudson at a parole
3 revocation hearing, which money respondent deposited in his personal
4 account. In his investigation of the matter, respondent discovered that
5 Williams was the complaining witness with respect to the parole violation,
6 realized that he had a conflict of interest, and withdrew from the case.
7 When Williams complained to the relator about not receiving a refund of a
8 portion of the fee she had paid, respondent issued her a check for $200 from
9 his trust account, which was returned once for lack of sufficient funds
10 before it was honored. The panel concluded that by his actions, responded
11 had violated DR 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek the lawful objectives of a
12 client), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract of employment), and 7-
13 101(A)(3) (prejudicing or damaging a client during the course of the
14 professional relationship), 9-102(A) (funds of clients paid to a lawyer, other
15 than advances for costs and expenses, shall be deposited in one or more
16 identifiable bank accounts), and 9-102(B) (a lawyer shall promptly pay and
17 deliver to a client funds which the client is entitled to receive).

2

1
The panel further found that after respondent was appointed to serve
2 as administrator with will annexed for the estate of Lucille Thomas in the
3 Franklin County Probate Court, he initiated action to sell real estate, but
4 failed to take any other action. He also failed to file a status letter when
5 requested by the court, failed to appear at the citation hearing on the failure
6 to file the status letter, was charged with contempt, fined $100, and was
7 removed as administrator. The panel concluded that respondent's conduct
8 violated DR 1-102(A)(5)(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
9 administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely
10 reflects upon the lawyer's fitness to practice law), 6-101 (A)(1)(handling a
11 legal matter which he knows he is not competent to handle), and 7-
12 101(A)(1), (2), and (3).
13
The panel finally found that in representing the fiduciary for the
14 estate of John M. Parks, respondent settled numerous disputes between the
15 decedent's next of kin. However, citations were issued against respondent
16 in September 1992 for failing to file an inventory, in August 1994 and again
17 in September 1995 for an account past due, and in October 1995 for failing
18 to file a status letter. Respondent did not appear at the hearing on the last

3

1 citation and was charged with contempt. At the contempt hearing,
2 respondent admitted that he had not filed an Ohio estate tax return in the
3 case because he did not know how to prepare or file one. Also, he had not
4 properly disposed of some trucks that were the property of the estate
5 because he "Didn't get to it." Respondent was found guilty of contempt,
6 fined $200, and ordered to receive no fees from the estate. The panel
7 concluded that respondent's acts and failures to act violated DR 1-102(A)
8 (5) and (6), 6-101(A), and 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3).
9
The panel received letters from a law professor and other lawyers
10 attesting to respondent's legal ability, and noted that no party was deceived
11 or injured by respondent's actions. The panel recommended that respondent
12 be suspended from the practice of law for six months, but that the entire
13 suspension be stayed subject to the monitoring of respondent's probate
14 practice and any other monitoring which the relator deemed appropriate.
15 The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
16 panel.
17
_____________________________________
18
Stanley D. Ross and Bruce A. Campbell, for relator.

4

1
Eric K. Jackson, pro se.
2
_____________________________________
3
Per Curiam. We accept the findings and conclusions of the board. In
4 a previous case involving failure to file an Ohio estate tax return, we
5 imposed a public reprimand. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Stocker (1989), 47
6 Ohio St. 3d 46, 547 N.E.2d 1175. Here, because of his inexperience,
7 respondent not only failed to file an estate tax return but also neglected a
8 number of other probate matters. This is a case where mentoring is
9 warranted. We therefore accept the board's recommendation and suspend
10 respondent from the practice of law for six months, but we stay the entire
11 suspension subject to respondent's being monitored for the duration of the
12 suspension as determined by relator. Costs taxed to respondent.
13

Judgment accordingly.
14
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
15 LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
16
COOK, J., dissents.
17
COOK, J., dissenting. Respondent's course of conduct depicts a great
18 deal more than inexperience. A lawyer new to the practice of law should

5

1 not be excused for (1) issuing an insufficient-funds check to his client from
2 his trust account, (2) twice ignoring requests from courts for status letters,
3 (3) being cited five times for past-due probate filings, (4) twice failing to
4 appear at citation hearings with resulting contempt of court charges, (5)
5 ignoring the responsibility to file a tax return rather than seeking assistance,
6 and (6) espousing a "didn't get to it" reason for failure to fulfill the
7 responsibility he accepted as a fiduciary. Diligence is not a "goal" to be
8 reached through experience in the practice; it is a requirement from the first
9 day. The public is entitled to be protected from lawyers who will not
10 perform, in the manner of a competent professional, the work for which they
11 were engaged. I would, therefore, suspend the respondent for one year.

6