Toledo Bar Assn. v. Meyer - 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 Toledo Bar Assn. v. Meyer, 95 Ohio St.3d 111, 2002-Ohio-1941.]

TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. MEYER.
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Meyer (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 111.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Neglect of an
entrusted legal matter -- Failing to seek client's lawful objectives --
Failing to carry out contract of professional employment -- Failing to
account for or return client's funds -- Failing to cooperate in
disciplinary investigation.
(No. 01-2171 -- Submitted February 6, 2002 -- Decided April 24, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-32.
__________________

Per Curiam. On April 9, 2001, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging respondent, Richard Allen Meyer, Jr., of Toledo, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0008952, with three counts of professional misconduct.
Respondent failed to answer, and the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline referred relator's motion for default to a master commissioner for
ruling.

Count One of the complaint charged that Antonio and Barbara Duran
retained respondent in May 1999 to file bankruptcy on their behalf. The couple
paid respondent $800, but to their knowledge he never filed the bankruptcy
petition. Respondent also failed to keep contact with these clients, and he never
returned their file or their retainer. The master commissioner found that this
conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(1) (failing to seek client's lawful objectives), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry
out a contact of professional employment), and 9-102 (failing to account for or
return client's funds). Because respondent failed to cooperate in relator's

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
investigation of the misconduct, the master commissioner also found that
respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).

With respect to Count Two, the master commissioner found that
respondent had violated the same rules in the course of representing Robert T.
Pirucki, Sr. Pirucki retained respondent in July 1998 to file a bankruptcy on his
behalf. Pirucki paid respondent $800, but again respondent failed to file the
bankruptcy petition and to maintain contact with his client. Respondent further
failed to return any portion of Pirucki's funds. Because respondent failed to
cooperate in the investigation of this misconduct, the master commissioner found
that respondent had again violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).

According to Count Three, Pirucki also engaged respondent to represent
him in a divorce action in 1998. Respondent did not maintain client contact in
this case and further failed to notify Pirucki of or represent him at two scheduled
court appearances. Pirucki ultimately had to retain other counsel. The master
commissioner found that this conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(1)
and (2) and also that respondent's failure to cooperate in the investigation of this
misconduct violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).

For all these infractions and the lack of any mitigating factors, the master
commissioner recommended, as had relator, that respondent be suspended
indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio. Upon adopting the master
commissioner's findings of fact and conclusions of law, the board accepted this
recommendation.

On review of the record, we concur in the board's findings of misconduct
and agree that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction. Accordingly,
respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.
Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
2

January Term, 2002

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

Paul D. Giha and Patricia Horner, for relator.
__________________
3