 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cleveland Bar Association v. Sterling12/30/1998
er several more unsuccessful attempts by Whiting to contact respondent, respondent then advised her that he would file the complaint.
In June 1989, respondent filed the complaint for Whiting in Erie and Crawford Counties in Pennsylvania, but never perfected service of the complaint, as required under Pennsylvania procedural rules. Respondent claimed that he had forgotten the Pennsylvania requirements concerning perfection of service. A Pennsylvania attorney subsequently informed Whiting that the complaint had not been served and that she had no genuine likelihood of prevailing in the suit.
The panel concluded that respondent's conduct in the Pennsylvania case violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 6-101(A)(1) (handling a legal matter that he knows or should know that he is not competent to handle, without associating with him a lawyer who is competent to handle it), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services), and 7-101(A)(3) (prejudicing or damaging his client during the course of the professional relationship).
The panel additionally found that in September 1991, Linda Williams retained respondent to represent her in the purchase of property located in Cleveland. Lester Collins, the owner of the property, resided in a nursing home, and respondent was to prepare a deed and check with the probate court to determine whether Collins was under a guardianship. After respondent assured Williams that Collins was not under a guardianship, Williams paid off the existing mortgage and obtained possession of the property. She then made substantial improvements to the premises and used it as a rental property.
After Collins died, his estate brought a legal action against Williams for concealment of assets. Collins had actually been under a guardianship at the time of the sale and did not have the capacity to sell the property. Respondent claimed that he had relied on erroneous information from the probate court clerk's office to conclude that Collins was not under a guardianship when he advised Williams. Although he realized that he was under suspension, respondent represented Williams in the ensuing probate court litigation. Williams discharged him in September 1995.
The panel concluded that respondent's conduct in the probate matter violated DR 6-101(A)(2) (handling a legal matter without adequate preparation), 3-101(B) (practicing law in a jurisdiction where to do so would violate the regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction), and Gov.Bar R. V(8) (practicing law while under suspension).
In mitigation, relator's counsel noted that respondent is a Vietnam War veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome, that he had battled alcoholism, and that he had gone through a divorce . As part of the court's previous suspension, respondent entered into the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, Inc. ("OLAP") in May 1994 to treat his alcohol dependence and emotional problems. Relator found that Sterling had fully complied with the court's previous conditions of the 1994 Gov.Bar R. V suspension. He also obtained over ninety hours of CLE credit in the year before the panel hearing. Relator's counsel advised the panel that respondent had been a respected adversary for over twenty years and that respondent had fully cooperated with relator in the disciplinary proceeding. Relator informed the panel that an indefinite suspension would be an appropriate sanction. The panel agreed with relator, noted that respondent "could be a credit to the profession," and recommended an indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
T
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.
|
|