Cincinnati Bar Ass n. v. Caliman - 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

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. CALIMAN.
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Caliman (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Six-month suspension -- Failure to pursue a
legal matter and misrepresentation of the status of that matter to clients.
(No. 97-2676 -- Submitted June 9, 1998 -- Decided October 28, 1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-113.

On December 9, 1996, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint
charging that respondent, A. Noel Caliman of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0023375, violated several Disciplinary Rules while representing
Sandi Allen and her son, Gregory Allen, with respect to a motor vehicle accident.
After respondent filed his answer, the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board").

Based on stipulations of the parties and evidence produced at a hearing, the
panel found that respondent filed a personal injury action on behalf of Sandi and
Gregory Allen on March 7, 1991. Respondent did not achieve service on the
defendant within one year, and the case was dismissed with prejudice on October
9, 1992. Respondent did not file an appeal, but continued to represent to the
Allens either actively, or by avoiding their telephone calls, that he was advancing
their case. It was not until August 1995 when the Allens employed another
counsel who confronted respondent that respondent admitted that the case had
been dismissed. The panel concluded that respondent's actions and failure to act
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation) and 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter).

In mitigation, the panel received testimony and letters from attorneys and a
judge with respect to respondent's character, reputation, and ability. It

recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of six months with the
entire six months stayed subject to monitoring by relator during the stayed
suspension period to ensure that respondent's case management system is
satisfactory. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the panel.
__________________

William E. Clements and Richard H. Johnson, for relator.

H. Fred Hoefle, for respondent.
__________________

Per Curiam. We adopt the findings of the board. The evidence considered
by the panel involved both respondent's failure to pursue a legal matter and
respondent's misrepresentation of the status of that matter to his clients. We
therefore adopt the conclusion of the board that respondent violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) and 6-101(A)(3). In Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74
Ohio St.3d 187, 191, 658 N.E.2d 237, 240, a case very similar to this, we held that
"when an attorney engages in a course of conduct * * * that violates DR 1-
102(A)(4), the attorney will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an
appropriate period of time." In this case the board recommended that respondent
be suspended for six months with the suspension stayed. That recommendation
does not follow the Fowerbaugh prescription of "actual suspension."

We hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for an
actual period of six months. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG
STRATTON, JJ., concur.

DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment only.

2