Disciplinary Counsel v. Robinson - 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. ROBINSON.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Robinson (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Six-month suspension with sanction stayed on
conditions -- Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation.
(No. 98-720 -- Submitted May 27, 1998 -- Decided September 30, 1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-22.

On February 6, 1995, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
complaint charging respondent, Ronald Robinson of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0029934, with violating several Disciplinary Rules arising out of
his failure to pursue a civil suit on behalf of a client. Respondent filed an answer,
and the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board").

The panel found that on April 25, 1988, respondent filed suit on behalf of
Philip Abbott, alleging that Abbott's sister stole $56,752 from him in workers'
compensation checks. Abbott was unaware that his case was dismissed for want
of prosecution on March 14, 1990, and that respondent's motion for relief from
judgment was denied on February 6, 1991. As late as June 1992, respondent
continued to inform Abbott that he was working on his case. Abbott subsequently
employed other legal counsel, who obtained a malpractice judgment against
respondent for $33,016.75, which has not been satisfied.

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). It found in mitigation that respondent had not been previously
sanctioned. It further found that he cooperated with Disciplinary Counsel, that he

recognized the gravity of his actions and was remorseful for them, and that during
the time of the actions he was suffering from bipolar disorder. The panel
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six
months, but that the entire six-month suspension be stayed, provided respondent
complete a two-year probationary period under a monitor selected by relator. The
panel recommended the following conditions to respondent's probation: (1) that
no further disciplinary complaints be certified against respondent during the
probationary period, (2) that during the probationary period respondent regularly
consult with a qualified treating psychiatrist and follow all of the psychiatrist's
orders relating to medication, (3) that respondent engage in an individualized form
of cognitive rehabilitation performed by a clinical neuropsychologist who will
tailor a program around actual tasks and real-life demands respondent faces in
conducting a law practice, (4) that to compensate for his impaired memory
abilities, respondent adopt various techniques and aids, such as maintaining
schedules and tracking appointments and time, and be trained in practical note-
taking, and (5) that respondent acquire and learn to use a personal computer in his
law practice. The board adopted the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of
the panel.
__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Harald F. Craig III,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

George S. Coakley, for respondent.
__________________

Per Curiam. Having reviewed the record, we adopt the findings,
conclusion, and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended
from the practice of law for six months; however, the entire six-month suspension

2

is stayed, provided that respondent complete a two-year probationary period,
under a monitor selected by relator, upon the conditions set forth by the board in
its report, and upon the further condition that, during the probationary period,
respondent satisfy the malpractice judgment against him in the amount of
$33,016.75. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

3