Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson - 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

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. JOHNSON.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 79.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- One-year suspension -- Conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation -- Failing to carry out
contract of employment -- Neglect of an entrusted legal matter.
(No. 97-1754 -- Submitted October 20, 1997 -- Decided February 18, 1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-35.

On April 14, 1997, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme
Court, filed a complaint alleging that after respondent, Inza E. Johnson of
Wilmington, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0040642, undertook to represent
Lisa Franco in a wrongful termination and discrimination claim against Franco's
former employer, respondent failed to file Franco's complaint as promised.
Nevertheless, alleged relator, respondent continually assured Franco that the
complaint had been filed. Later, respondent misrepresented to Franco that the
defendant was attempting to file a late answer. Franco discovered respondent's
deception and filed a grievance with relator. Relator charged that respondent's
false statements and her failure to act violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a
contract of employment), and 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter).

When respondent did not answer the complaint, relator filed a motion for
default and attached to it an affidavit by Franco and a letter of response to
Franco's grievance filed by respondent. The matter was submitted to a panel of
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
("board").

The panel found the facts as alleged, concluded that respondent had violated
DR 1-102(A)(4), 7-101(A)(2), and 6-101(A)(3), and recommended that respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for one year. The board adopted the
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, Alvin E. Mathews, Jr., and
Stacy M. Solochek, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
__________________

Per Curiam. Having reviewed the record, we concur in the board's
findings, conclusions, and recommendation. As we said in Columbus Bar Assn. v.
Clark (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 363, 365, 667 N.E.2d 1182, 1183, "A lawyer is not
required to serve every client who appears at his door, but once having agreed to
represent a client, a lawyer must do so to the best of his ability." Earlier we said in
Disciplinary Counsel v. Greene (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 13, 16, 655 N.E.2d 1299,
1301 that this court "cannot permit attorneys who lie either to their clients or to the
court to continue practicing without interruption." Therefore, we hereby suspend
respondent from the practice of law for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

2