Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kieft - 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 Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kieft, 94 Ohio St.3d 429, 2002-Ohio-1234.]

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. KIEFT.
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kieft (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 429.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Neglect of an entrusted
legal matter -- Failing to carry out contract of employment -- Failing to
promptly return clients' funds or other property -- Failing to cooperate in
investigation of grievance.
(No. 01-1881 -- Submitted December 12, 2001 -- Decided March 6, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court, No. 01-11.
__________________

Per Curiam. In a complaint filed on February 5, 2001, relator, Cincinnati
Bar Association, charged respondent, David W. Kieft of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0042465, with misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). Respondent was served the complaint but
did not answer. Relator accordingly moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R.
V(6)(F).

The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme
Court appointed a master commissioner to review the default motion. The master
commissioner found that respondent had committed various violations of DR 6-
101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a
contract of employment), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly return client's funds
or other property) in the course of representing three clients and that he had failed to
cooperate in the investigation of their grievances in violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
The master commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law in Ohio for a period of two years with the second year suspended on
conditions. The board adopted the findings of misconduct but recommended that

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
respondent receive an indefinite suspension "based on his misconduct and total
failure to cooperate or explain his actions."

We agree with the board. In December 1999, respondent promised to
represent Jerry Johnson in a bankruptcy proceeding; however, respondent
subsequently failed to produce certain financial records required by the trustee, he
failed to return Johnson's telephone messages, and he failed to attend a hearing after
advising Johnson that his (Johnson's) presence was not necessary. Respondent also
failed to reply to a second hearing notice, after which the court dismissed the
bankruptcy proceeding. Johnson ultimately fired respondent. Respondent then
ignored Johnson's request for the return of files and records and refused to answer
inquiries made by Johnson's new counsel. As the board found, this conduct
constitutes violations of DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 9-102(B)(4), and
respondent's failure to cooperate in the investigation of Johnson's grievance
constitutes a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).

Kyle Robinson also retained respondent in 1999, paying him $1,000 to secure
a discharge from the Ohio National Guard. Respondent obtained the discharge but
did not send Robinson a final bill or return the unused portion of Robinson's retainer
as promised. Respondent further ignored Robinson's messages asking for the final
bill and refund. As the board found, this conduct violates DR 6-101(A)(3) and 9-
102(B)(4), and respondent's failure to cooperate in the investigation of Robinson's
grievance constitutes a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).

Finally, in May 2000, respondent agreed to represent Joyce A. Scribbin in a
divorce action. After paying respondent $460, Scribbin was unable to contact him by
telephone or facsimile. In July 2000, respondent failed to appear at a scheduling
conference, and Scribbin wrote to respondent to advise him of this and again to
request a response. Not only did respondent ignore Scribbin's letter, he missed a
second scheduling conference held later that month. As the board found, this conduct
violates DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2), and respondent's failure to cooperate in
2

January Term, 2002
the investigation of Scribbin's grievance constitutes a violation of Gov.Bar R.
V(4)(G).

Having failed to respond in any way to the charges in this complaint,
respondent has offered nothing to mitigate his misconduct. "Absent mitigating
circumstances, an indefinite suspension from the practice of law is an appropriate
sanction when an attorney engages in a pattern of neglect involving multiple clients
and refuses to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigations." Lorain Cty. Bar
Assn. v. Fernandez (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 82, 84, 728 N.E.2d 1056, 1057.
Respondent is, therefore, suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio.

Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

COOK, J., concurs in judgment.
__________________

Paul M. De Marco and Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator.
__________________
3