Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Turner - 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

[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Turner, 89 Ohio St.3d 119, 2000-Ohio-125.]

BUTLER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. TURNER.
[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Turner (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 119.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Six-month suspension with entire suspension
stayed on conditions -- Neglecting an entrusted legal matter -- Failing
to deposit client funds in an identifiable bank account in which funds of
the lawyer are not deposited -- Failing to promptly pay client funds to
which client is entitled.
(No. 99-2262 -- Submitted February 9, 2000 -- Decided May 31, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-05.

On February 8, 1999, relator, Butler County Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging respondent, T. Randall Turner of Monroe, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0016670, with violating several rules of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Respondent answered, and the matter was heard by a panel of the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
("board").

The panel found that in April 1994, Calvin Stacy retained respondent to
handle the estate of Stacy's wife, who died in March 1994. Except for delivering
a funeral bill to respondent in July 1995, Stacy had no contact with respondent
until May 30, 1997, despite having made telephone calls to respondent's office
and scheduling several appointments with respondent, which respondent did not
attend. The panel found that for three and a half years after he was retained,
respondent did no work on the estate of Stacy's wife and never returned Stacy's
telephone calls.

The panel further found that in December 1996, Ruth Howland retained
respondent, and in May 1997 paid him a retainer of $500 and $158 in court costs

to handle the estate of her deceased husband. Howland's daughter made repeated,
almost daily, telephone calls to respondent's office and was always told that
respondent was in court or on vacation. The calls were never returned. Shortly
thereafter, Howland and her daughter discovered that nothing had ever been filed
against her husband's estate.

The panel also found that in March 1996, William Turner and his sisters
retained respondent to handle the estate of their parents, paying him $2,500 and
providing him with their parents' wills and other pertinent documents. From that
time until July 1997, when Turner and his sisters discovered that respondent had
not opened estates for either of their parents, respondent failed to return their
telephone calls and cancelled appointments with them. After respondent was
removed as attorney for the estates, he produced some of the papers that were
provided to him, but has not returned the wills, nor can he find them. Finally, the
panel found that after respondent cashed the retainer checks, he put the funds in
his lock box and not in a trust account.

The panel concluded that respondent's conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3)
(a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), 9-102(A) (a lawyer shall
deposit client funds in an identifiable bank account in which funds of the lawyer
are not deposited) and 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly pay to the client
funds to which the client is entitled). In mitigation, the panel found that
respondent's actions were not motivated by dishonesty or selfishness but were
caused by physical and psychological problems, including sleep apnea.

The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for six months with the entire six months stayed, on condition that
respondent establish an IOLTA (Interest on Lawyer's Trust Account), that
respondent continue and complete his treatment with a physician and psychologist
specializing in sleep disorders, that during the six months his suspension is stayed,
respondent complete six hours of continuing legal education relating to ethics,

2

professionalism, and law office management, that respondent pay the Turner heirs
$1,765.25, and that respondent enter into a mentor relationship with an attorney to
be named by the relator. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the panel.
__________________

Sandford I. Casper and Leslie S. Landen, for relator.

William C. Mann and Richard A. Cline, for respondent.
__________________
Per
Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six
months with the entire six months stayed, on condition that during this stay,
respondent shall establish a client trust account; respondent shall continue his
treatment with a physician and psychologist specializing in sleep disorders;
respondent shall complete six hours of continuing legal education relating to
ethics, professionalism, and law office management and shall pay the Turner heirs
$1,765.25; and respondent shall work with an attorney-mentor to be named by the
relator. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents.
__________________

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. I dissent and would suspend
respondent for one year with six months stayed with conditions. I believe that
respondent's neglect was so severe that without the mitigation, it would warrant
indefinite suspension. However, in consideration of his psychological and
medication conditions, I believe a lighter sentence is warranted, but not a full stay
of any suspension. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

3