Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dewey - 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. Dewey, 98 Ohio St.3d 418, 2003-Ohio-1495.]

TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. DEWEY.
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Dewey, 98 Ohio St.3d 418, 2003-Ohio-1495.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Conduct adversely
reflecting on fitness to practice law -- Neglect of an entrusted legal matter
-- Two previous professional disciplines.
(No. 2002-2177 -- Submitted February 12, 2003 -- Decided April 9, 2003.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-20.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} Respondent, Ronald D. Dewey of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0061193, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in May
1993. On April 8, 2002, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint
charging respondent with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent was served with the complaint but did not answer, and relator filed a
motion for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). A master commissioner
appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline reviewed
the motion and made the following findings.
{¶2} A married couple retained respondent in 1998 to defend them
against a lawsuit filed in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. They each
attested that respondent did not provide them notice of various events, including
the fact that discovery had been requested, that their responses were overdue, and
that their depositions had been scheduled. Moreover, when the trial court ordered
the couple to appear on contempt charges, respondent did not advise them to
attend. According to the master commissioner's findings, respondent also failed
to advise his clients that a mediation conference had been scheduled, that his

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
clients had been cited for contempt, and that respondent had paid a $900 fine on
their behalf. Relator's complaint made these allegations, but relator offered no
evidence to prove them. Thus, we dismiss these allegations under Gov.Bar R.
V(6)(F)(b), which requires "[s]worn or certified documentary prima facia
evidence" in support of a motion for default.
{¶3} During the investigation of this misconduct, respondent supplied a
number of letters to relator's counsel that he had supposedly sent to the wife
concerning developments in defense of the suit against the couple. The wife
reviewed copies of these letters, but discovered that she had received only three or
four of them.
{¶4} The master commissioner found that respondent's representation
of these clients violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting on an
attorney's fitness to practice law) and 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal
matter). The master commissioner also found a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4)
(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) based on the
wife's statement that she had not received all of the correspondence that
respondent submitted to show that he had kept her notified. However, he also
relied on the complaint allegation that the respondent's original file, as transferred
to the clients' new attorney, did not contain such correspondence. We consider
the proof that respondent fabricated letters insufficient because the record does
not substantiate this allegation.
{¶5} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the master
commissioner considered as an aggravating circumstance that respondent had
twice before been the recipient of professional discipline. In Toledo Bar Assn. v.
Dewey (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 419, 750 N.E.2d 1118, respondent was publicly
reprimanded for having discussed his client's case with other parties whom he
knew to be represented by counsel, a violation of DR 7-104(A)(1). In Toledo Bar
Assn. v. Dewey, 96 Ohio St.3d 148, 2002-Ohio-3608, 772 N.E.2d 630, we
2

January Term, 2003
suspended respondent's license to practice law for two years, with one year stayed
on conditions, for again having violated DR 7-104(A)(1). And to further
aggravating effect, both of the prior cases were resolved through motions for
default because respondent failed to answer those complaints, just as he failed to
do here.
{¶6} The master commissioner recommended that respondent be
suspended indefinitely from the practice of law. The board adopted his findings
of misconduct and recommendation.
{¶7} On review, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and
6-101(A)(3). We also agree that respondent's repeated infractions and his failure
to respond to ethics charges warrant an indefinite suspension. Respondent is
therefore suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed
to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

Catherine G. Hoolahan, William C. Eickholt, Jonathan B. Cherry and
Robert S. Salem, for relator.
__________________
3