Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fodal - 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 Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fodal, 92 Ohio St.3d 99, 2001-Ohio-158.]

GREENE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. FODAL.
[Cite as Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fodal (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 99.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Engaging in conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice -- Engaging in conduct
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law -- Neglect of an entrusted
legal matter -- Failing to carry out contract of employment for
professional services -- Failing to promptly deliver funds or other
property belonging to client -- Failing to cooperate in disciplinary
investigation -- Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation.
(No. 00-2229 -- Submitted February 7, 2001 -- Decided June 13, 2001.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioner on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, Nos. 99-63, 00-37, and 00-74.

Per Curiam. On October 11, 1999, relator, Greene County Bar
Association, filed a two-count complaint charging that respondent, Joe R. Fodal
of Fairborn, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0011515, violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline ("board") assigned number 99-63 to the case. Respondent failed to file
an answer. On April 13, 2000, relator filed a complaint charging respondent with
five additional violations of the Code. The case was assigned number 00-37.
Respondent failed to file an answer. On August 14, 2000, relator filed another
complaint charging respondent with two more violations of the Code. The case
was assigned number 00-74. Again, respondent failed to answer.

On August 22, 2000, on the recommendation of Master Commissioner
Harry W. White, to whom the board assigned the cases for hearing, all three

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
matters were consolidated into one proceeding. On September 21, 2000, relator
filed a motion for default in the consolidated cases.

Based upon the complaint and attached affidavits in case No. 99-63, the
master commissioner found that in the summer of 1998, Cindy S. Griffin hired
respondent and paid him a retainer of $1,000 to represent her in a divorce
proceeding. Because respondent delayed six weeks before filing the final decree
after the hearing, Griffin's receipt of child support was delayed. In addition,
respondent did not file until November 1999 a quitclaim deed transferring to
Griffin her former husband's real estate interests, placing Griffin at a
disadvantage in refinancing the property. Also, in case No. 99-63, the master
commissioner found that although Larry J. and Cynthia R. Williams paid
respondent $625 in December 1998 to file a bankruptcy action for them, the
bankruptcy had not been filed by June 1999 when the Williamses filed a
grievance with relator.

Based on the complaint and attached affidavits filed in case No. 00-37, the
master commissioner found that in 1998, Roberta M. Parnell paid respondent
$450 to represent her in a divorce matter. Although respondent filed no action, he
told Parnell that a court date had been set. Respondent did not return the filing
fees, nor did he provide her with her file when requested to do so. In addition, the
master commissioner found that in September 1998, respondent took no action on
behalf of Samuel J. Hamilton, who had hired him and paid him $300 for a retainer
and filing fees. Respondent also failed to return the money when Hamilton
requested. Similarly, in February 1999, respondent did not file a bankruptcy for
Kathylene Hobson after he was retained to do so, nor did he return the retainer
paid by Hobson when she requested it.

Scott Mundey retained respondent to represent him in a divorce action in
May 1999. Six months after the decree, respondent still had not recorded the
appropriate deed of transfer. In the same month, Marvin A. Barrett hired
2

January Term, 2001
respondent to close a real estate transaction. Respondent did not prepare the
necessary documents or close the transaction and did not return Barrett's retainer.
And late in 1999, after hiring respondent to handle estate and real estate matters,
Calvin K. Poole received a notice from the probate court for failure to make a
timely filing. Respondent also did not complete certain real estate transactions for
Poole.

In case No. 00-74, the master commissioner found that respondent failed
to prepare and record a deed to complete a land contract purchase after being
hired to do so by Patience Kendig in June 1999. And after filing an appeal from
an adverse decision of the Fairborn Municipal Court for Michael D. Jones in
1998, respondent failed to file a timely brief. As a result, the appeal was
dismissed and Jones was required to find new counsel to defend a foreclosure
action against his residence resulting from the adverse judgment.

The master commissioner concluded that respondent's actions and failures
to act violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely
reflects on the attorney's ability to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an
entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract of employment
for professional services), 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly deliver funds or other
property belonging to a client), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a
disciplinary investigation), and with respect to the Parnell matter DR 1-102(A)(4)
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).

The master commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended
from the practice of law for two years with the last year stayed and that
respondent be placed on probation. During this probation, respondent would be
required to return all documents in his possession to clients entitled to them, and
with the exception of Griffin's and Poole's, to refund to clients all retainers for
services not performed, and to refund an excessive retainer in the Poole matter.
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Respondent would also be required to attend a continuing legal education course
in office management and organization in addition to fulfilling his mandatory
CLE requirement and not violate any provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the master
commissioner but recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from
the practice of law in Ohio.

We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board. For his actions and failures to act, respondent is
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to
respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents.
__________________

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the
penalty recommended by the board and adopted by the majority. Respondent's
pattern was so egregious as to amount to more than mere neglect. His actions in
accepting money, doing no work at all, and failing to return any funds rise to the
level of theft. His clients suffered serious harm. Respondent has not even
bothered to respond to any of the complaints. I believe he has forfeited his right
to practice law in Ohio. I would therefore disbar the respondent.
__________________

Paul W. Barrett, for relator.
__________________
4