Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Allanson - 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

CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. ALLANSON.
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Allanson (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Failing to pursue
clients' interests -- Misrepresentation to client about status of a claim --
Failing to cooperate in current and previous disciplinary investigations.
(No. 98-753 -- Submitted June 10, 1998 -- Decided September 30, 1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-78.

On October 15, 1996, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a three-count
complaint charging respondent Charles S. Allanson III of Cleveland, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0025428, with violating three Disciplinary Rules and
one Rule for the Government of the Bar. Respondent, who was served with the
complaint as provided in Gov.Bar R. V(6)(E), failed to answer or otherwise plead,
and the relator filed a motion for default. The matter was heard by a panel of the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
("board").

On the basis of the allegations of the complaint and the exhibits and
affidavits attached to relator's motion, the panel found that in October 1989,
respondent conducted a meeting with some former employees of American
Photocopy Equipment and Supply Company. He was retained by several of the
employees, including Thomas U'Ren, John Armstrong, and Brian Dunaway, who
each paid him a $40 fee, to pursue their claims against the company for unpaid
compensation. Respondent filed proofs of claim in the company's bankruptcy
case for several of the employees, but not for U'Ren, Armstrong, and Dunaway.
Nevertheless, when contacted by U'Ren, respondent assured him that he was
pursuing his claim.

The employees for whom respondent filed a claim received a portion of
their unpaid wages from the bankruptcy, but U'Ren, Armstrong, and Dunaway
received nothing. Respondent initially denied that he had been retained by U'Ren
and Armstrong and then failed to cooperate in relator's investigation.

The panel found that with respect to his representation of U'Ren,
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and with respect to
U'Ren, Armstrong, and Dunaway, respondent violated DR 2-110(A)(3) (a lawyer
who withdraws from employment shall refund any portion of a fee that has not
been earned) and 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted
to him). The panel also found that respondent's failure to cooperate with relator
violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall refuse to assist in an investigation
or hearing). Finally, the panel noted that in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Allanson
(1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 228, 648 N.E.2d 1340, respondent had been publicly
reprimanded for his failure to cooperate in an investigation, and in In re Report of
Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn. (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1426, 655 N.E.2d 1311,
he was suspended from the practice of law for failure to comply with continuing
legal education requirements. We also note that in July 1997, we found
respondent in contempt of this court and suspended him. Cleveland Bar Assn. v.
Allanson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 1436, 680 N.E.2d 1011. The panel recommended
that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The board
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
__________________

Martin J. Murphy and Cathleen M. Bolek, for relator.
__________________

2

Per
Curiam. We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.
Respondent's failure to pursue his clients' interests, his misrepresentation to
U'Ren about the status of a claim, and his failure both in this instance and on
previous occasions to cooperate in relator's investigation warrant the suspension.
We therefore adopt the recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

3