Disciplinary Counsel v. Treneff - 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 Disciplinary Counsel v. Treneff, 98 Ohio St.3d 348, 2003-Ohio-1011.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. TRENEFF.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Treneff, 98 Ohio St.3d 348, 2003-Ohio-1011.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- One-year suspension with six months stayed
on conditions -- Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation -- Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice
law -- Collection of an excessive fee -- Neglect of an entrusted legal
matter -- Failing to seek client's lawful objectives -- Failing to carry
out contract of employment -- Damaging or prejudicing client during
representation -- Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigations.
(No. 2002-1781 -- Submitted January 8, 2003 -- Decided March 19, 2003.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-02.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} Respondent, Randall C. Treneff of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0042588, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio on
November 6, 1989. In an amended complaint filed August 19, 2002, relator,
Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with four counts of professional
misconduct. A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline heard the matter and adopted the parties' comprehensive stipulations as
its findings of fact. Those stipulations include the following.
{¶2} With respect to the first count of misconduct, a client retained
respondent in May 2000 to represent him in a criminal case pending before an
Ohio court of appeals. The client paid respondent $3,000. However, on May 31,
2000, we placed respondent on an interim suspension from the practice of law

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(1)(b) for being in default of a child support order.
In re Treneff (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 1416, 729 N.E.2d 386.
{¶3} Respondent's suspension lasted just over one month and was lifted
on July 6, 2000. In re Treneff (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 1438, 731 N.E.2d 182. But
in that amount of time, respondent disobeyed our order. He did not return the
client's papers and unearned fees as required by Gov.Bar R. V(8)(E)(1)(b) and
(c). Moreover, while respondent advised his client that he would substitute
another attorney to pursue the client's appeal during his suspension and would
resume the client's representation when it ended, he filed a number of documents
that he had prepared before his suspension, including a motion for delayed appeal.
All of these documents showed the other attorney as counsel of record, but they
also listed that attorney at respondent's address.
{¶4} After respondent's license was reinstated, the court of appeals
granted the motion for delayed appeal. Respondent failed to formally reenter the
case despite having assured the attorney who had taken over for him that he had
done so. Respondent also failed to file appellate briefs in the case.
{¶5} In November 2000, the client discharged respondent and retained
new counsel. The client asked that respondent forward his file and all unearned
fees to the new counsel. Respondent did not send the file and falsely represented
to the first attorney who had been substituted for him that he had refunded $2,000
of his client's money.
{¶6} In December 2000, the client's new counsel contacted respondent
directly to ask for the file and the unearned portion of the retainer. Respondent
again did not comply. Notwithstanding this, the new counsel filed briefs in the
appeal, and in May 2001, the court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment
and remanded the cause to the trial court.
{¶7} With respect to another count of misconduct, the parties stipulated
that respondent agreed in the summer of 1999 to represent his sister-in-law in a
2

January Term, 2003
personal injury action. Respondent accepted the case on a contingent-fee basis
but did not reduce the agreement to writing as required by R.C. 4705.15(B). In
August 1999, respondent advised the insurance carrier of his representation and
provided some of his client's medical bills. Afterward, he did nothing to advance
his client's interests. He never submitted a settlement demand. Moreover, while
representatives of the carrier tried to pursue settlement, respondent did not supply
any information. And when his client inquired about her case, respondent blamed
the carrier for his lack of progress.
{¶8} In April 2001, respondent and his wife separated. In July 2001, the
statute of limitations on his client's personal injury action expired. In the spring,
summer, and fall of 2001, his father-in-law and two attorneys tried repeatedly to
learn about the status of the client's case. Respondent did not reply.
{¶9} With respect to the remaining two counts of misconduct, the
parties stipulated that respondent did not initially cooperate in either of these
investigations. Nor did respondent respond to certified and hand-delivered letters
of inquiry. And while respondent did appear for two depositions about these
grievances, he did not bring with him all of the documents subpoenaed for
production.
{¶10} Consistent with the misconduct to which the parties stipulated, the
panel found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and (6) (engaging in
conduct adversely reflecting on an attorney's fitness to practice law); 2-106
(collection of an excessive fee); 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal
matter); and 7-101(A)(1) (failure to seek a client's lawful objectives), (2) (failure
to carry out a contract of employment), and (3) (damage or prejudice to client
during representation). Because respondent did not cooperate in relator's
investigations, the panel also found that respondent had violated Gov.Bar R.
V(4)(G).
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶11} In recommending a sanction, the panel considered that respondent
had experienced marital difficulties with his second wife during the events at
issue and, in his depressed condition, had begun to abuse alcohol. Respondent
has sought some counseling for this problem. In addition, the panel considered
respondent's claim that he had never actually been behind in his child support and
that a processing error had resulted in the notice that led to the interim suspension.
Moreover, respondent claimed that he had not been paid for a great deal of legal
work performed for his client before the client's criminal appeal and promised to
refund $3,000 if the panel so requested.
{¶12} The parties suggested that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for one year and that six months of this period be stayed on the
condition that he consult the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program ("OLAP") for an
evaluation within 30 days of a final order in this case and comply with OLAP's
recommended treatment plan. The panel accepted this recommended sanction as
consistent with Toledo Bar Assn. v. Pommeranz (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 139, 753
N.E.2d 175, Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nigolian (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 147, 718
N.E.2d 417, and Akron Bar Assn. v. Hoffer (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 97, 712 N.E.2d
116. The board adopted the panel's findings of misconduct and recommendation.
{¶13} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6); 2-106;
6-101(A)(3); and 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3), as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). We
also agree that a one-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions is a
commensurate sanction. However, in addition to the conditions recommended by
the board, we impose another on the stay--that respondent pay the outstanding
fine for his failure to comply with CLE requirements.
{¶14} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of
law in Ohio for one year; however, six months of this sanction are stayed on the
conditions that he consult OLAP for an evaluation within 30 days of our order,
that he comply with OLAP's recommended treatment plan, and that he pay any
4

January Term, 2003
unpaid CLE sanctions. If respondent fails to meet these conditions, the stay of his
suspension shall be lifted, and respondent shall serve the full suspension. Costs
are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Randall C. Treneff, pro se.
__________________
5