Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Haynes - 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 Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Haynes, 88 Ohio St.3d 164, 2000-Ohio-293.]

LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. HAYNES.
[Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Haynes (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 164.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Neglect of an entrusted
legal matter.
(No. 99-1889 -- Submitted December 15, 1999 -- Decided February 23, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-86.

On December 7, 1998, relator, Lorain County Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging respondent, John S. Haynes of Elyria, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0005772, with one count of violating a Disciplinary Rule and two
counts of violating a Rule for the Government of the Bar. After respondent filed
an answer, the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") upon the testimony and
exhibits introduced by the parties.

The panel found that on December 19, 1996, John Mand retained respondent
to modify a visitation order because Mand's ex-wife had moved to Michigan with
their child. Respondent quoted Mand a flat fee of $350 plus court costs to handle
the matter, and Mand paid respondent $225 of the quoted fee to retain him.
Respondent then prepared a draft copy of motions, including motions to modify

visitation and child support, and sent them to Mand for his review. On January 27,
1997, after Mand had approved the draft, respondent filed the motions in the
Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. Respondent
subsequently talked with Mand's ex-wife's attorney, Margaret Kelly, and they
agreed that the case could be settled.

A hearing on the motions was scheduled for March 19, 1997, but was
continued until July 16, 1997. Respondent never notified Mand of either the
March 19 hearing date or that the hearing scheduled for that date had been
continued. Kelly sent respondent a proposed settlement of the case on March 20,
1997. Respondent did not respond to the proposal.

After numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact respondent, Mand met with
respondent on April 14, 1997. During the meeting, respondent assured Mand that
he would take care of things and that Mand would be contacted about the case in a
few weeks. When Mand heard nothing from respondent and tried unsuccessfully
to speak with him, Mand advised respondent's secretary on May 21, 1997, that he
wanted to fire him. Respondent then talked to Mand, and Mand demanded a
refund of the $225 retainer. Respondent did not return the retainer, and Mand later
agreed that respondent's fee for the work he had done was not excessive. Mand
retained another attorney, and the case was eventually resolved.

2

The panel concluded that respondent's conduct in the Mand matter violated
DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter). The panel also concluded
that relator had not introduced sufficient evidence to establish the other charges
alleging violations of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary
proceeding) by the required clear and convincing evidence.
In
mitigation,
respondent submitted letters from a local judge and a local
attorney attesting to respondent's fine reputation and good character in the legal
community. Relator conceded that respondent was "not a bad lawyer" and that
some of his trouble stemmed from respondent's being too "good-hearted." No
other complaints had ever been brought by relator against respondent.

The panel recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded. The
board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
__________________

Cook & Batista Co., L.P.A., and Daniel A. Cook, for relator.

Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, Geoffrey Stern and Christopher J. Weber, for
respondent.
__________________

Per Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the board. Given respondent's solitary act of neglect in an otherwise unblemished
legal career and the lack of financial harm to his client, a public reprimand is

3

warranted. See Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Smith (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 402, 709
N.E.2d 116; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Kates (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 69, 676 N.E.2d
512; Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Tscholl (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 211, 567 N.E.2d 265.
Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

4