Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Griffin - 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. Griffin, 90 Ohio St.3d 307, 2000-Ohio-79.]

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. GRIFFIN.
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Griffin (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 307.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Eighteen-month suspension with entire
suspension stayed and attorney placed on probation -- Engaging in
conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law -- Neglecting an
entrusted legal matter -- Failing to carry out contract for professional
services Failing to deposit client funds in a separate bank account --
Failing to promptly pay client on request funds client is entitled to
receive -- Failing to maintain complete records of all client funds
coming into attorney's possession -- Neglecting or refusing to assist or
testify in disciplinary investigation.
(No. 00-835 -- Submitted July 6, 2000 -- Decided November 15, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-75.

On October 7, 1999, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a
third amended complaint charging respondent, Willie L. Griffin of Cleveland,
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0038051, with several violations of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Rules for the Government of the Bar.
Respondent filed an answer, 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 November 1997, Ulysee Beltcher retained
respondent and paid him a retainer of $1,500 to pursue a claim against Agency
Homes for failing to make agreed repairs to his house. After respondent sent a
letter to Agency Homes setting out Beltcher's claim, Beltcher was unable to
contact respondent for about six weeks. When Beltcher finally reached
respondent, respondent said that he would file suit against Agency Homes as soon

as Beltcher paid him $100 for the filing fee. Although Beltcher paid the $100 in
February 1998, he heard no more from respondent until April or May 1998, when
Beltcher went to respondent's home and asked why the suit had not been filed.
Respondent agreed to file it right away. It was two months more before Beltcher
was able again to contact respondent, who told him that Agency Homes did not
respond to his certified letter and may have moved. Finally, on October 9, 1998,
Beltcher filed a grievance with relator against respondent, unaware that
respondent had filed the suit on Beltcher's behalf on October 5, 1998.

In December 1998, relator requested that respondent respond to Beltcher's
grievance. After relator made several attempts to contact him, respondent finally
spoke with relator on January 14, 1999. At a subsequent meeting, respondent
agreed to respond to the grievance and produce his entire file by February 5,
1999. Respondent failed to produce either a response or the file on that date.
Respondent finally supplied relator with a portion of his file on September 14,
1999.

The panel further found that in May 1996, Deborah Smith-Williams
retained respondent and paid him $2,200 of an agreed $3,500 fee to represent her
son, who had been charged with attempted murder. Without the consent of his
client, respondent obtained a continuance of the trial set in December 1996,
although there is evidence indicating that the court may have contacted
respondent about a possible continuance. Respondent did not respond to Smith-
Williams's request that he account for the work he had done for her son; instead,
he withdrew as counsel and failed to return any of the retainer. After Smith-
Williams contacted relator, respondent failed to respond to her contentions and
failed to produce his file as requested by relator.

The panel finally found that respondent did not deposit the funds he
received from Beltcher and Smith-Williams in a separate bank account and failed
to keep records regarding those funds.

2

The panel concluded that during his representation of Beltcher, respondent
violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon the
lawyer's fitness to practice law), 2-106(A) (charging and collecting a clearly
excessive fee for services rendered), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal
matter), and 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract for professional services).
With respect to the money paid by Beltcher, the panel concluded that respondent
violated DR 9-102(A)(2) (failing to deposit client funds in a separate bank
account), 9-102(B)(3) (failing to maintain complete records of all client funds
coming into his possession), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay to a client
on request the funds which the client is entitled to receive). The panel further
concluded that respondent's failure to cooperate with relator's investigations in
both cases violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (neglecting or refusing to assist or testify
in a disciplinary investigation).

The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for six months, with all six months stayed in favor of probation. During
probation, relator would appoint a monitor to assist respondent in the management
of his law practice, and respondent would establish and maintain an IOLTA.

The board adopted the findings of the panel and concluded that in the
Beltcher matter respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-
101(A)(2); however, the board found insufficient evidence to support a violation
of DR 2-106(A). It concluded that respondent's handling of funds in the Beltcher
matter violated DR 9-102(A)(2), 9-102(B)(3), and 9-102(B)(4), and that his
handling of funds in the Smith-Williams matter violated DR 9-102(B)(3) and 9-
102(B)(4). The board further concluded that respondent's failure to cooperate
with relator's investigations in both cases violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). The
board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for
eighteen months, with all eighteen months of the suspension stayed in favor of
probation on the conditions recommended by the panel.

3

__________________

Robert J. Vecchio, Mary Ann O. Rini and Ellen S. Mandell, for relator.
Bernard
Redfield, for respondent.
__________________
Per
Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for
eighteen months, with all eighteen months of the suspension stayed, and
respondent is placed on probation. During the eighteen months of probation,
relator shall monitor respondent's law practice, and respondent shall establish and
maintain a trust account for client funds. A violation of the conditions of
probation may result in the revocation of probation and reinstatement of any
stayed suspension. Gov.Bar R. V(9)(E). Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.

MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissent.

COOK, J., dissents.
__________________

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I agree with
the recommendation to suspend respondent from the practice of law for eighteen
months. However, I would stay only twelve months of the suspension. I believe
that respondent's egregious behavior and multiple violations of Disciplinary
Rules warrant, at a minimum, an actual suspension of six months.

MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

4