Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Meros - 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 Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Meros, 89 Ohio St.3d 304, 2000-Ohio-158.]

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MEROS.
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Meros (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 304.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Continued pattern of
neglect of client matters -- Failure to cooperate with disciplinary
investigation -- Prior disciplinary record.
(No. 99-2261 -- Submitted April 11, 2000 -- Decided July 12, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-105.

On August 25, 1998, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed an
amended complaint charging respondent, Thomas L. Meros of Cleveland, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0005345, with disciplinary violations in seven separate
matters.

Unable to locate respondent, relator served notice of filing the amended
complaint on the Clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).
When respondent failed to answer, relator filed a motion for default judgment.

A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the
Supreme Court ("board") considered the matter and found that since 1991,
respondent had failed to represent several clients adequately. In January 1991,
respondent contacted Margaret Stychno's attorney and offered to help with
1

Stychno's pending legal malpractice case, stating that he had "dirt" on one of the
defendants. Shortly thereafter, respondent entered his appearance for Stychno
without her knowledge or prior permission, and Stychno's original attorney
withdrew from the case. In February 1991, the defendants' motion to dismiss the
malpractice case was granted. Respondent, however, did not tell Stychno of the
dismissal and avoided meeting with her despite the several attempts she made to
contact him. Two weeks before the scheduled trial date, respondent informed
Stychno that he was preparing for trial. In August 1991, respondent finally told
Stychno of the dismissal on the day the trial was to begin.

The panel further found that Gordon McCarthy paid respondent $10,000 and
orally agreed to pay a further contingent fee in return for filing a lawsuit in the
United States District Court in Massachusetts. After the suit was dismissed on a
motion for summary judgment, McCarthy paid respondent an additional $3,000 to
file an appeal. Respondent filed a notice of appeal on May 10, 1995, but the court
of appeals later dismissed the appeal for failure to file a timely brief.

The panel also found that in April 1993, Karen Skinner retained respondent
to represent her in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. Respondent did
not prepare for trial, did not appear for depositions, did not respond to discovery
orders, failed to file briefs, and did not keep Skinner informed of the progress of
the case.

2

The panel found that in May 1994, Cheri Harmon-Klein paid respondent a
retainer of $2,000 to represent her in several matters. However, respondent's
failure to research and document Harmon-Klein's claim against her previous
employer, KPMG, which admitted owing Harmon-Klein back commissions of over
$3,147, resulted in no recovery against the company. His failure to respond within
time limits resulted in Harmon-Klein's case against C & S Computer Services
being dropped. In September 1994, Harmon-Klein paid respondent $5,000 to file a
legal malpractice claim. Respondent filed the suit, but thereafter failed to pursue
the action or communicate with Harmon-Klein. Sometime in 1996, respondent
dismissed Harmon-Klein's malpractice action and her suit against KPMG without
her knowledge or consent. After respondent was discharged by Harmon-Klein, he
failed to return the retainers as she had requested.

The panel found that in March 1997, Edward Drozdowski paid respondent a
retainer of $19,500 "to represent him in filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action against a
former attorney." (Sic.) Respondent filed an appropriate motion to appear pro hac
vice in the case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida; however, that court denied respondent's motion and treated the matter as
though Drozdowski had proceeded pro se. Respondent took no further action, did
not communicate with Drozdowski, and refused to return the retainer.

3

In addition, the panel found that Leo A. Walter and John D. Hayes paid
respondent a $1,000 retainer to represent them in the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas. After respondent filed the case, he failed to appear or
communicate with Walter or Hayes. The case was eventually dismissed because
"Plaintiffs' counsel failed to show."

Finally, the panel found that after respondent filed a complaint for Norman
Durma in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in
March 1997, he failed to contact Durma, and failed to appear at a court-ordered
status conference, with the result that the court dismissed Durma's case without
prejudice.

Based on these facts, the panel concluded that in the Stychno, McCarthy,
and Skinner matters, respondent violated DR 5-101(A) (a lawyer shall not accept
employment where his professional judgment on behalf of his client will be
affected by his own financial or personal interest), that in the Stychno matter
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice), and that in the McCarthy, Skinner,
Harmon-Klein, Drozdowski, Walter-Hayes, and Durma matters respondent
violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him).

4

Finding that respondent failed to cooperate with the disciplinary
investigation in the Stychno, McCarthy, Skinner, and Durma matters, the panel
concluded that in those cases respondent also violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (a
lawyer shall cooperate in an investigation of attorney misconduct). The panel
found no mitigating circumstances and recommended that respondent be given an
indefinite suspension. The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the
panel, but based on his continuing pattern of misconduct, his total lack of
cooperation, and his prior disciplinary record (see 83 Ohio St.3d 222, 699 N.E.2d
458), recommended that respondent be disbarred.
__________________

Steven M. Ott and Gary S. Fishman, for relator.
__________________
Per
Curiam. We adopt the findings of the board, except the finding that
respondent brought an action under Section 2255, Title 26, U.S.Code against
Drozdowski's former attorney. Such an action is in the nature of habeas corpus
and was, in fact, brought against the United States of America. We adopt the
conclusions of the board and its recommendation. Respondent's continued pattern
of neglect of client matters together with his failure to cooperate with relator's
investigation indicates that respondent will not conform to the ethical standards of
the legal profession. See Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lieser (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 8,

5

693 N.E.2d 766. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of
law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

6