Toledo Bar Assn. v. Crandall - 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. Crandall, 98 Ohio St.3d 444, 2003-Ohio-1637.]

TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. CRANDALL.
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Crandall, 98 Ohio St.3d 444, 2003-Ohio-1637.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Practicing law while
under suspension for failure to meet continuing legal education
requirements -- Failing to cooperate in disciplinary investigation of this
misconduct.
(No. 2002-2183 -- Submitted February 12, 2003 -- Decided April 16, 2003.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-35.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} Respondent, Dale R. Crandall, Attorney Registration No. 0005576,
whose last known address is in Perrysburg, Ohio, was admitted to the practice of
law in Ohio in May 1979. On June 17, 2002, relator, Toledo Bar Association,
filed a complaint charging that respondent had disobeyed an order suspending his
license to practice law for noncompliance with Continuing Legal Education
("CLE") requirements and had failed to cooperate in relator's investigation of this
misconduct. After unsuccessful efforts to serve the complaint on respondent at
his last known address, relator served the complaint on the Clerk of the Supreme
Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). A master commissioner appointed by the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline ("board") reviewed the
cause on relator's motion for default and made the following findings.
{¶2} With respect to Count One of the complaint, the master
commissioner found that respondent had been retained to represent a married
couple in a personal injury action. On April 27, 2001, we suspended indefinitely
respondent's license to practice law for his failure to comply with CLE

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
requirements for the 1998-1999 reporting period and also for three consecutive
reporting periods. In re Crandall (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1501, 1502, 746 N.E.2d
605. Respondent violated this order by continuing to represent the couple. He
did not notify his clients of his suspension, he corresponded with them about
medical releases and proposed depositions, and he advised the husband to ignore
a court reporter's notice about an earlier deposition.
{¶3} In May 2001, after his clients were unable to reach respondent
because his office telephone had been disconnected, the couple learned from
relator that respondent's license had been suspended and that he had been
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. In a letter to respondent, the couple
discharged him and asked him to forward their case file to another attorney.
Notwithstanding his suspension and discharge, respondent contacted the wife to
assure her that he was "on top of" the couple's case and to advise them to make
arrangements to attend the proposed depositions. In July 2001, the common pleas
court sent notice of a pretrial conference to the couple and respondent, and the
master commissioner concluded that respondent had also failed to formally
withdraw from the couple's personal injury case.
{¶4} The master commissioner found that this conduct violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), (5)
(conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and (6) (conduct adversely
reflecting on an attorney's fitness to practice law); and 3-101(B) (unauthorized
practice of law).
{¶5} With respect to another count in the complaint, the master
commissioner found that respondent had also continued to represent a different
client in a personal-injury action. On May 29, 2001, respondent again violated
the order suspending his license by filing a motion for extension of time to
respond to a motion for summary judgment. Respondent represented in that
motion that he was the plaintiff's attorney, and although he advised the court of
2

January Term, 2003
his suspension in the supporting memorandum, he never withdrew from the case,
no substitution of counsel was entered, and the motion for summary judgment
was granted.
{¶6} The master commissioner found that this conduct constituted a
second violation of DR 3-101(B).
{¶7} The other two counts of the complaint alleged that respondent had
failed to cooperate in relator's investigation of these grievances. Respondent
contacted investigators several times in writing and by telephone; however, he did
not supply information in response to letters of inquiry, comply with a subpoena
for his deposition, or appear at hearings to show cause why a formal complaint
should not be issued. The master commissioner found that respondent had
thereby twice violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
{¶8} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the master
commissioner determined that respondent's pattern of misconduct, multiple
offenses, uncooperativeness, deceptive practices during the disciplinary process,
and refusal to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his actions were aggravating
factors. Section 10(B)(1) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court. No mitigating factors were presented. Thus,
the master commissioner recommended that respondent's license be suspended
indefinitely from the practice of law, so that his reinstatement, if it occurs, will be
subject to the rigorous conditions in Gov.Bar R. V(10). The board adopted the
master commissioner's findings of misconduct and recommendation.
{¶9} We agree that respondent committed the cited misconduct and that
an indefinite suspension is appropriate. In Akron Bar Assn. v. Barron (1999), 85
Ohio St.3d 167, 707 N.E.2d 850, we suspended indefinitely the license of an
attorney who had practiced law in violation of our ordered sanction for his
noncompliance with CLE requirements and who had also failed to cooperate in
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
the investigation of this misconduct. The same sanction is warranted here.
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.
__________________

David F. Cooper and Mark S. Barnes, for relator.
__________________
4