03/28/2005 Case Announcements - 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

CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

March 28, 2005

[Cite as 03/28/2005 Case Announcements, 2005-Ohio-1364.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2000-1030. Ohio Hosp. Assn. v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
Cuyahoga App. No. 76067. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal
from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. On April 13, 2001, this court
stayed further proceedings in this case and ordered appellee to file a notice with
this court upon the termination of the automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code.
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellee W. R. Grace & Son &
Co.-Conn. file a notice advising this court of the status of the bankruptcy case
within 15 days of the date of this entry.

2003-1572. State ex rel. Howard v. Indus. Comm.
Franklin App. No. 97AP-860. This cause came on for further consideration of
appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio's bill and documentation in support of
attorney fees. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the Industrial Commission of Ohio is
awarded additional attorney fees in the amount of $99.
Lanzinger, J., not participating.

2005-0424. State ex rel. Sandusky Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Culbert.
In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a
writ of prohibition. Upon consideration of the joint motion for temporary stay of
the presentation of evidence and briefing schedule,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion be, and hereby is, granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the parties shall file any
evidence they intend to present within 90 days of the date of this entry. Pursuant to
the court's order of March 7, 2005, relator shall file its brief within ten days after
the filing of evidence; respondent shall file his brief within 20 days after the filing

of relator's brief; and relator may file a reply brief within five days after the filing
of respondent's brief.

2005-0524. Hawk v. Athens Cty.
Athens App. No. 05CA1. This cause was filed as a discretionary appeal and
claimed appeal as of right. Upon consideration of appellant's jurisdictional
memorandum, it is determined by the court that this cause originated in the court of
appeals and therefore should proceed as an appeal as of right pursuant to
S.Ct.Prac.R. II(1)(A)(1).
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the Clerk shall issue an order for the
transmittal of the record from the Court of Appeals for Athens County. Appellant
shall file his merit brief within 40 days of the filing of the record with the Clerk of
this court, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R.
VI.

DISCIPLINARY CASES

2004-2034. Disciplinary Counsel v. Haggins.
On February 17, 2005, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F), this court indefinitely
suspended respondent, Shelbra Haggins, Attorney Registration No. 0056244, last
known business address in Cleveland, Ohio, based on her October 5, 2004
indefinite suspension by the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio. This court's order allowed respondent to file a petition for reinstatement
with this court upon the filing of proof that she has been reinstated to the practice
of law in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio. It has come
to the court's attention that as a prerequisite to admission in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Ohio, that court's Loc.R. 83.5 requires an
attorney to be admitted to the practice of law and in good standing with the highest
court of any state. Therefore, it will not be possible for respondent to be reinstated
by the federal district court until she is reinstated by this court. Upon consideration
thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court, sua sponte, that respondent may file her
petition for reinstatement to the practice of law in Ohio pursuant to Gov.Bar R.
V(10)(B) upon the filing of an affidavit in which she avers that the only legal
impediment to her reinstatement by the United States District Court, Northern
District of Ohio, is her February 17, 2005 suspension by the Ohio Supreme Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that in addition to the
prerequisites to reinstatement listed in Gov.Bar R. V(10)(E), respondent must
establish, to the satisfaction of the panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline, hearing her petition for reinstatement, that the only
2
3-28-05

legal impediment to her reinstatement by the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio is her February 17, 2005 suspension by the Ohio
Supreme Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this
court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of
Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number,
and timeliness of filings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that service shall be deemed made
on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, by certified
mail to the most recent address respondent has given to the Attorney Registration
Section.

2005-0364. In re Garfield.
On February 18, 2005, and pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(3), the Secretary of the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of
Ohio certified to the Supreme Court a certified copy of a judgment entry of a
felony conviction against Robert E. Garfield, an attorney licensed to practice law
in the state of Ohio.

Upon consideration thereof and pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4), it is
ordered and decreed that Robert E. Garfield, Attorney Registration No. 0001873,
last known address in Pepper Pike, Ohio, be, and hereby is, suspended from the
practice of law for an interim period, effective as of the date of this entry.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter be, and is hereby, referred to
the Cuyahoga County Bar Association for investigation and commencement of
disciplinary proceedings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent immediately cease and desist
from the practice of law in any form and is hereby forbidden to appear on behalf of
another before any court, judge, commission, board, administrative agency or other
public authority.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, effective immediately, respondent be
forbidden to counsel or advise, or prepare legal instruments for others or in any
manner perform legal services for others.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent is hereby divested of each, any
and all of the rights, privileges and prerogatives customarily accorded to a member
in good standing of the legal profession of Ohio.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. X(3)(G),
respondent shall complete one credit hour of continuing legal education for each
month or portion of a month of the suspension. As part of the total credit hours of
continuing legal education required by Gov.Bar R. X(3)(G), respondent shall
complete one credit hour of instruction related to professional conduct required by
3
3-28-05

Gov.Bar R. X(3)(A)(1), for each six months, or portion of six months, of the
suspension.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall not be reinstated to the
practice of law in Ohio until (1) respondent complies with the requirements for
reinstatement set forth in the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar
of Ohio; (2) respondent complies with this and all other orders issued by this court;
(3) respondent complies with the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the
Bar of Ohio; and (4) this court orders respondent reinstated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, by the court, that within 90 days
of the date of this order, respondent shall reimburse any amounts that have been
awarded by the Clients' Security Fund pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F). It is
further ordered, sua sponte, by the court that if, after the date of this order, the
Clients' Security Fund awards any amount against the respondent pursuant to Gov.
Bar R. VIII(7)(F), the respondent shall reimburse that amount to the Clients'
Security Fund within 90 days of the notice of such award.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 30 days of the date of this
order, respondent shall:
1. Notify all clients being represented in pending matters and any co
counsel of respondent's suspension and consequent disqualification to act as an
attorney after the effective date of this order and, in the absence of co-counsel, also
notify the clients to seek legal service elsewhere, calling attention to any urgency
in seeking the substitution of another attorney in respondent's place;
2. Regardless of any fees or expenses due respondent, deliver to all clients
being represented in pending matters any papers or other property pertaining to the
client, or notify the clients or co-counsel, if any, of a suitable time and place where
the papers or other property may be obtained, calling attention to any urgency for
obtaining such papers or other property;
3. Refund any part of any fees or expenses paid in advance that are
unearned or not paid, and account for any trust money or property in respondent's
possession or control;
4. Notify opposing counsel in pending litigation or, in the absence of
counsel, the adverse parties of respondent's disqualification to act as an attorney
after the effective date of this order, and file a notice of disqualification of
respondent with the court or agency before which the litigation is pending for
inclusion in the respective file or files;
5. Send all such notices required by this order by certified mail with a return
address where communications may thereafter be directed to respondent;
6. File with the Clerk of this court and the Disciplinary Counsel of the
Supreme Court an affidavit showing compliance with this order, showing proof of
4
3-28-05

service of notices required herein, and setting forth the address where the affiant
may receive communications; and
7. Retain and maintain a record of the various steps taken by respondent
pursuant to this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall keep the Clerk, the
Cuyahoga County Bar Association and the Disciplinary Counsel advised of any
change of address where respondent may receive communications.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this
court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of
Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number,
and timeliness of filings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that service shall be deemed made
on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, by certified
mail to the most recent address respondent has given to the Attorney Registration
Section.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified
copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1),that publication be
made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs
of publication.

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2004-1743. Gamble v. Norwood.
Hamilton App. No. C-040019, 2004-Ohio-4661. This cause is pending before the
court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County. Upon
consideration of appellant's application for dismissal,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby
is, granted.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be,
and hereby is, dismissed.

2004-2129. State ex rel. Morris v. Hunter.
Summit App. No. 22308. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from
the Court of Appeals for Summit County. It appears from the records of this court
that appellant has not filed a merit brief, due March 23, 2005, in compliance with
the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute
this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed sua
sponte.

5
3-28-05

MEDIATION REFERRALS

The following case has been referred to mediation pursuant to Sup.Ct.Prac.R.
XIV(6):

2005-0206. State ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Morrow Cty. Prosecutor's
Office.
In Mandamus. On the question of attorney fees.

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

2004-2108. Disciplinary Counsel v. Kafele.
This cause came before the court upon the filing of a report in the Office of the
Clerk of this court by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law.

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that this cause be remanded to the
Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law to supplement the reasons stated for its
recommendation.

6
3-28-05