 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cleveland Bar Association v. Sterling12/30/1998
Submitted September 29, 1998
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Sterling (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Attorneys at law - Misconduct - Indefinite suspension - Forging client's signature on an affidavit and notarizing it - Handling a legal matter that attorney knows or should have known he is not competent to handle -Neglect of an entrusted legal matter - Failing to carry out contract of employment - Prejudicing or damaging client during course of professional relationship - Handling a legal matter without adequate preparation - Practicing law in a jurisdiction where to do so would violate the regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction -Practicing law while under suspension.
In November 1975, respondent, Howard Thomas Sterling of University Heights, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0034274, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio. In March 1994, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for two years because he had violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Sterling (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 528, 629 N.E.2d 400. We stayed the final eighteen months of the suspension, with respondent to be placed on monitored probation under certain conditions. We also suspended respondent from the practice of law and imposed sanctions upon him in May 1994 for his noncompliance with the continuing legal education requirements of Gov.Bar R. X. 69 Ohio St.3d 1457, 634 N.E.2d 219.
In June 1997, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a three-count complaint charging respondent with violating various Disciplinary Rules and one of the Rules for the Government of the Bar. After respondent filed an answer admitting most of the complaint's factual allegations, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") heard the matter.
The panel found that respondent represented Olga Bryant, the plaintiff in an employment discrimination case in a federal district court in Pennsylvania. In opposing a dismissal motion, respondent filed a brief and an affidavit, which purported to be signed by Bryant. At the hearing on the dismissal motion, respondent admitted that, although certain of the statements in the affidavit were not true, he forged his client's signature on the affidavit and then notarized it. According to respondent, because he had to file the brief and affidavit in a short period of time, he drafted the affidavit based on his notes from conversations with Bryant, and he did not intend to defraud either the court or his client by filing the affidavit.
The panel concluded that respondent's conduct in the employment discrimination case violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of Justice), and 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in any other conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law).
The panel further found that in December 1987, Charlotte Whiting hired respondent under a contingent-fee agreement to prosecute a wrongful death action on behalf of the estate of her mother and paid him $450 to cover deposition costs. After several months passed without being advised of the status of her case, Whiting repeatedly telephoned respondent's office, but she received no reply. Whiting eventually was able to speak with respondent only when she posed as a new client. During that conversation, respondent assured her that he had filed a complaint in her case in both Erie and Crawford Counties in Pennsylvania. Whiting then contacted the clerk's offices in those counties and was advised that no such complaint had been filed. Aft
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|