Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ohlweiler - 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. Ohlweiler, 95 Ohio St.3d 28, 2002-Ohio-1367.]

STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. OHLWEILER.
[Cite as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ohlweiler (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 28.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Two-year suspension with entire sanction
stayed on conditions -- Failing to file bankruptcy for numerous clients
after accepting fees to do so.
(No. 01-1882 -- Submitted December 12, 2001 -- Decided March 27, 2002.)
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-25.
__________________

Per Curiam. In July 1995, Molly McNulty retained respondent, Robert J.
Ohlweiler, currently of San Diego, California, Attorney Registration No.
0037651, and, by October, had paid him $440 of an agreed $550 fee to file a
bankruptcy. Before McNulty could pay the last installment, respondent closed his
Canton, Ohio office, disconnected his telephone, and could not be contacted.
Respondent retained McNulty's money and did not file a bankruptcy case for her.

Prior to June 1997, Suzette and Kevin Gowens paid respondent $675 to
file a bankruptcy for them. Respondent did not file the case. After the relator,
Stark County Bar Association, began to investigate a grievance filed by the
Gowenses, respondent returned their file and their money. Similarly, after relator
commenced an investigation, respondent returned to Trish Parker the $305 fee he
had received from her in May 1996 to file a bankruptcy. After May 1996, she
could not contact respondent. The Miller matter was the same. In 1996,
respondent received $560 from Jamie Miller but never filed a bankruptcy for him
and failed to respond to Miller's inquiries. Respondent refunded the money to
Miller after respondent began its investigation. Earlier, in 1995, Jennifer L.
Winters retained respondent for the purpose of filing a bankruptcy and paid him

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
$250. Thereafter, respondent did not file the bankruptcy, and Winters could not
contact him. He did return the money to Winters when relator began its
investigation. Again, in 1997 after Patrick Starkey paid respondent his fee of
$365, respondent failed to file a bankruptcy for Starkey and returned the fee only
upon the inquiry and investigation of relator.

On April 3, 2000, relator filed a complaint charging that this conduct of
respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent
answered, and the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners
on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board").

At a hearing, the panel considered testimony and stipulations and then
found the facts as set forth above and concluded that in each case, respondent
violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter) and
7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail to carry out a contract for professional
employment). The panel noted in mitigation that respondent's misconduct during
1996 and 1997 was at least in part a consequence of his alcohol addiction.
Further, respondent attempted rehabilitation at a facility in New Jersey but
relapsed after returning to Ohio. In 1999, he again attempted rehabilitation, this
time in San Antonio, Texas. Believing that he had succeeded in rehabilitation,
respondent moved to California, where he was also admitted to the bar, in an
attempt to practice law there. However, shortly thereafter, respondent again
relapsed into alcohol consumption. Finally, respondent entered the Pathfinders
program in San Diego, California, and has remained sober while in that program.
He expressed remorse for his actions and indicated that he did not intend to
resume the practice of law in Ohio, where he is presently registered inactive.

The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for two years, with the entire two years stayed pending respondent's
completion of two years of probation on the following conditions: that
respondent's probation be supervised by relator through a monitoring program
2

January Term, 2002
including random testing by an alcohol-treatment provider in California, that
respondent become current with all continuing legal education requirements in
Ohio, that he report all disciplinary actions to relator, that he remain in good
standing with the Supreme Court of Ohio, and that, within ninety days, through
the relator, he refund $440 to Molly McNulty plus interest at ten percent per year
from October 31, 1997. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the panel.

We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice
of law in Ohio for two years, with the entire two years stayed pending
respondent's completion of two years of probation on the following conditions in
conformance with the recommendation of the panel as adopted by the board: that
respondent's probation be supervised by relator through a monitoring program
including random testing by an alcohol treatment provider in California, that
respondent become current with all continuing legal education requirements in
Ohio, that he report all disciplinary actions to relator, that he remain in good
standing with the Supreme Court of Ohio, and that, within ninety days, through
the relator, he refund $440 to Molly McNulty plus interest at ten percent per year
from October 31, 1997. Failure to meet these conditions of probation will result
in the entire two-year suspension being imposed. 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
majority's decision to stay the entire two years of the respondent's suspension
from the practice of law. Instead, I would impose an actual suspension of one
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
year and stay one year of the suspension. Based upon the number of grievances
filed against this respondent, his ongoing abuse of alcohol, and the number of
proven disciplinary violations, I would impose a more stringent penalty.
__________________

Richard S. Milligan, Thomas A. Burns and John P. Van Abel, for relator.

Robert J. Ohlweiler, pro se.
__________________
4