Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Paterson - 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 Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Paterson, 98 Ohio St.3d 446, 2003-Ohio-1638.]

LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. PATERSON.
[Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Paterson, 98 Ohio St.3d 446, 2003-Ohio-
1638.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Failing to cooperate in
a disciplinary investigation.
(No. 2002-2219 -- 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. 02-37.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} In 2001, two persons filed grievances with relator, Lorain County
Bar Association, complaining about the representation provided by respondent,
James J. Paterson of Lorain, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0062320, in certain
criminal cases. Respondent subsequently failed to comply with two subpoenas
instructing him to appear before relator.
{¶2} On June 17, 2002, relator filed a complaint charging respondent
with having violated a Disciplinary Rule and a Rule for the Government of the
Bar. On October 23, 2002, the parties filed an untimely consent-to-discipline
agreement. See Rule 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court ("BCGD Proc.Reg."). The matter was submitted
to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the
Supreme Court upon the parties' agreement, respondent's affidavit, and
respondent's deposition. The panel treated the untimely consent-to-discipline
agreement as a stipulation. BCGD Proc.Reg. 11(F). The panel found the facts as

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
previously set forth and concluded that respondent had violated Gov.Bar R.
V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation).
{¶3} In mitigation, the panel noted that respondent had been admitted to
the practice of law in 1993 and had no prior disciplinary record. BCGD
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). In addition, the panel found that when relator issued its
subpoenas, respondent was in the process of closing his office and discontinuing
the active practice of law.
{¶4} The panel recommended, as the parties had agreed, that respondent
be publicly reprimanded. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the panel, and further recommended that the costs of the
proceedings be taxed to respondent.
{¶5} We agree with the board that a public reprimand is appropriate for
respondent's violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). See, e.g., Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v.
Ross, 97 Ohio St.3d 224, 2002-Ohio-5803, 778 N.E.2d 39, and Cuyahoga Cty.
Bar Assn. v. Rubino (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 466, 721 N.E.2d 986. Respondent is
hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

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

Daniel A. Cook, for relator.

James J. Paterson, pro se.
__________________

2