Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wilson - 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 Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wilson, 89 Ohio St.3d 243, 2000-Ohio-147.]

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILSON.
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wilson (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 243.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Six-month suspension stayed with probation --
Neglecting an entrusted legal matter -- Failing to seek lawful objectives of
client -- Failing to carry out contract of employment -- Prejudicing or
damaging client during course of professional relationship -- Failing to
cooperate in disciplinary investigation.
(No. 98-2616 -- Submitted February 23, 2000 -- Decided June 28, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-38.

Respondent, Steven C. Wilson of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration
No. 0032952, filed a personal injury action on behalf of Joseph McAtee, in
December 1991. Thereafter, he failed to inform his client that the defendant
offered to settle the suit for $8,000.

Later, in September 1994, respondent established a post office box as his
mailing address and relied on the postal service to forward his mail. He notified
relator, the Cincinnati Bar Association, of his change of address, but did not file
change of address notices in any of his pending cases.

On October 4, 1994, the defendant in the McAtee suit filed a motion for
summary judgment, serving respondent at his previous office address. Respondent
failed to respond or appear at the hearing, and in January 1995, the court granted
summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed McAtee's suit with prejudice.

Respondent told McAtee of the dismissal, and said that he intended to file a
Civ.R. 60(B) motion in an attempt to "overturn" the decision. However,
respondent failed to file the motion timely, and in March 1996, he informed
McAtee that his case was lost and nothing could be done. McAtee then sued
respondent for malpractice, and respondent settled by signing a note for $7,500.
As of September 1999, respondent had not paid anything on the note.

On April 14, 1997, relator filed a complaint charging respondent with
violating DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(1) (failing to seek the lawful objectives of a client), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to
carry out a contract of employment with a client), 7-101(A)(3) (prejudicing or
damaging a client during the course of a professional relationship), Gov.Bar R.
V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation), and Gov.Bar R.
VI(D) (failing to keep the Attorney Registration Office apprised of a current
residence and office address). Respondent answered denying the charges, and a

2

panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline ("board")
heard the matter on October 3, 1997.

In response to evidence introduced at the hearing, the panel ordered a
psychiatric examination of the respondent. Based on the results of that
examination, the board certified the matter to the Supreme Court pursuant to
Gov.Bar R. V(7)(B) (suspension for mental illness). The court, however,
remanded the case to the board for an evidentiary hearing based on respondent's
motion to vacate the certification on the ground that he had no opportunity to
respond to the psychiatric examination. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wilson (1999), 85
Ohio St.3d 1417, 707 N.E.2d 509.

On remand, the panel found the facts as set forth herein and further that
respondent had failed to cooperate with relator during its investigation. The panel
concluded that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-
101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). The panel found insufficient
evidence that respondent was currently mentally ill, and in view of the fact that this
was an isolated incident in respondent's career, recommended that he be publicly
reprimanded. The panel further recommended that respondent be assigned a
mentor to help him in his practice and that he pay restitution of $8,000 to McAtee.

The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel, but
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six

3

months with the entire six months stayed and probation imposed. It further
recommended that respondent be assigned a monitor selected by relator to assist
him in his practice and that he pay restitution to McAtee.
__________________

E. Hanlin Bavely, James A. Vogele and Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator.

John H. Berlew, 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 subject to being actually served should
respondent fail to meet the conditions of his probation. The probation conditions
include cooperation with a mentor as selected by relator and payment to McAtee,
no later than six months from the date of this judgment, of $8,000 plus interest at
the judgment rate from June 1995. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

4