Akron Bar Assn. v. Jones - 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 Akron Bar Assn. v. JOnes, 98 Ohio St.3d 422, 2003-Ohio-1497.]

AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. JONES.
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Jones, 98 Ohio St.3d 422, 2003-Ohio-1497.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Neglect of an
entrusted legal matter -- Failing to cooperate in disciplinary
investigation.
(No. 2002-2184 -- 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. 01-09.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} Respondent, Shirley Jones, Attorney Registration No. 0030085,
whose last known address is in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, was admitted to the
practice of law in Ohio in 1985. Relator, Akron Bar Association, filed two
complaints against respondent, on February 5 and July 12, 2001, respectively,
each alleging that she had neglected a different client's case in violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and that she had failed to cooperate in
relator's investigation of this misconduct. Respondent was served with and
answered the first complaint, but she did not answer the second, perhaps because
she had relocated in the interim unbeknown to relator. Relator thus served the
second complaint on the Clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R.
V(11)(B).
{¶2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline treated
the second complaint as an amendment of the first one and scheduled the entire
cause for a hearing before an appointed three-member panel. After a prehearing
conference in which respondent did not participate despite relator's having sent
notice to her at four different possible addresses, the panel chairperson directed

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
relator to engage an investigator to determine respondent's whereabouts. The
investigator discovered respondent's new address, and relator left notice of the
hearing at her residence. According to the chairperson, respondent later contacted
the chairperson to confirm her new address, and the panel rescheduled the hearing
to accommodate her. Notice of the new hearing date was served on respondent at
her new address. Notwithstanding these efforts, respondent did not attend the
hearing.
{¶3} The panel found that in 1999, a client living in California retained
respondent to do some legal work in connection with his father-in-law's estate.
Respondent and the client spoke about the case by telephone, and the client paid
respondent $625 for her services. According to the client, respondent did not
complete the requested work, and he asked her to refund his money. Respondent
apparently agreed to repay all but $50 of her fees, but she never did.1 The panel
found that respondent had thereby violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an
entrusted legal matter).
{¶4} The panel also found that in 1999, another client retained
respondent to settle the estate of her husband. The client paid respondent a
$1,000 retainer and $118 in filing fees. To the client's knowledge, respondent did
little if anything on the case, and the client eventually had to hire another attorney.
The client tried to contact respondent on numerous occasions to obtain her case
file and a refund. She left voice mails, sent a certified letter, and finally went to
respondent's office. The client was ultimately able to secure her case file, but
respondent never refunded the client's money. The panel found that respondent
had thereby again violated DR 6-101(A)(3).
{¶5} The panel further found respondent in violation of Gov.Bar R.
V(4)(G) (failure to cooperate in an investigation of misconduct). During the

1 Respondent was served with notice of the deposition at which this client provided his testimony
for the panel hearing, but she did not attend.
2

January Term, 2003
investigation of these grievances, relator persistently attempted to contact
respondent about the events leading to the two complaints and the consolidated
hearing. Almost all of these efforts were unsuccessful because respondent
ignored relator's telephone calls and certified and regular mailings.
{¶6} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel
considered as a mitigating factor the fact that respondent had no prior history of
discipline. The panel noted respondent's reference to health and other personal
difficulties in her answer to the first complaint, but it also observed that she had
not presented any evidence of these problems. As an aggravating factor, the panel
considered respondent's nearly complete failure to participate in these
proceedings. The panel was also troubled by one client's testimony that
respondent had not repaid him any money and the representation in respondent's
answer that she had.
{¶7} The panel recommended, consistent with relator's suggestion, that
respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The board adopted
the panel's findings of misconduct and recommendation.
{¶8} We agree with the board. "Neglect of legal matters and a failure to
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation generally warrant an indefinite
suspension from the practice of law in Ohio." Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder (1999),
87 Ohio St.3d 211, 212, 718 N.E.2d 1271. Accordingly, respondent is hereby
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.
__________________

Stephen J. Pruneski and James R. Ranftl, for relator.
__________________
3