Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Greig - 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 Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Greig, 90 Ohio St.3d 106, 2000-Ohio-33.]

STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. GREIG.
[Cite as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Greig (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 106.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- One-year suspension with entire suspension
stayed on condition -- Failing to carry out contract of employment --
Neglect of an entrusted legal matter -- Failing to cooperate fully with
disciplinary investigation.
(No. 00-414 -- Submitted April 26, 2000 -- Decided September 13, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-89.

On October 13, 1997, relator, Stark County Bar Association, filed a
complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the
Supreme Court ("board"), against respondent, Gary L. Greig of Massillon, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0042269, charging him with violations of several rules
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent answered and the matter
was heard by a panel of the board on July 16, 1999. Following the hearing, the
relator and respondent entered into written stipulations, which were filed with the
board on July 23, 1999.

Respondent is a forty-one-year-old attorney who closed his solo law office
in Massillon, Ohio, in August 1994. Respondent did not notify the Supreme Court

of Ohio or any of his clients of the closing of his office, did not provide a
forwarding address to his clients or the United States Post Office, and did not
provide anyone with a new telephone number where he could be reached. After
leaving the private practice of law, the respondent taught at a middle school in
Smithsville, Ohio, for a period of approximately two years and returned to the
practice of law as an Assistant Public Defender in Tuscarawas County, Ohio, in
September 1998.

Based on the stipulations and hearing testimony, the panel found that after
William K. Parker hired respondent and paid him $300 of a $660 agreed fee to file
a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, respondent failed to file the bankruptcy petition. The
panel also found that John and Vivian Cyphert paid respondent $570 in fees and
court costs to represent them in a marriage dissolution. Although respondent
appeared at the initial hearing in the dissolution proceedings, he failed to perform
further services for the Cypherts and failed to appear at the final hearing.

In addition, the panel found that Letitia A. Hintz paid respondent $125 for
representation in a personal injury action. Although respondent filed the case and
appeared at one deposition, he failed to respond to the defendant's motion for
summary judgment and Hintz's complaint was dismissed. The panel further found
that after Kathy Twigg engaged respondent to handle a personal injury action and

2

paid him $50 to order a medical report, respondent took no action and failed to
return her file.

Finally, the panel found that Frank A. Truman paid respondent $500 to
represent him in a child custody matter. Respondent attended an initial hearing,
but took no further action on Truman's behalf and did not return his file.

On July 14, 1999, just prior to the hearing before the panel in this matter,
respondent returned $300 to Parker, $570 to the Cypherts, $125 to Hintz, $50 to
Twigg, and $500 to Truman.

The panel concluded that respondent's conduct violated DR 7-101(A)(2) (a
lawyer shall not intentionally fail to carry out a contract of employment) and 6-
101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him). It also
found that by failing to cooperate fully with relator's investigation respondent
violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). The panel recommended that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one year, with the entire suspension stayed,
conditioned upon his not engaging in the unsupervised private practice of law
during that year and that he be monitored during that period on a regular basis by
the relator or other appropriate agency. The board adopted the findings,
conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
__________________

William W. Emley, Sr. and John A. Murphy, Jr., for relator.

3

Gary L. Greig, pro se.
__________________

Per Curiam. We adopt the board's findings, conclusions, and
recommendation. Consequently, the respondent is hereby suspended from the
practice of law for one year, with the entire suspension stayed conditioned upon his
not engaging in the unsupervised private practice of law during that year and that
he be monitored during that period on a regular basis by the relator or other
appropriate agency. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

DOUGLAS, RESNICK, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur.

MOYER, C.J., F.E. SWEENEY and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.
__________________

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the
sanction in this case.

Respondent essentially abandoned his practice in 1994. But respondent did
more than that. He took the money from several clients and did little or nothing on
their cases. He took no steps to withdraw and protect the interests of his clients.
He essentially stole their money. None of it was returned until five years later, just
prior to his disciplinary hearing. He also failed to cooperate fully with the
investigation in this matter.

4

Time and again we have suspended attorneys who take their clients' money
and do not pursue their cases. We have also suspended attorneys simply for failing
to cooperate.

The only "mitigation" presented was that respondent has now returned to a
"supervised" practice and that he "did convey a sense of remorse." He repaid the
clients' fees only on the eve of the hearing.

From the nature of the actions the respondent failed to pursue, clients were
clearly harmed. Bankruptcies were not filed, final hearings not attended, summary
judgments granted, and his clients' cases dismissed. Surely such conduct deserves
an actual suspension. I would suspend the respondent for two years and stay
eighteen months of that suspension, pending conditions of monitoring and that no
further violations be committed.

MOYER, C.J., and F.E. SWEENEY, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting
opinion.

5