 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplinary Counsel v. Tyack11/16/2005
Submitted June 28, 2005
{ } Respondent, Deborah Ann Tyack of Westerville, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0012362, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1982. She is not currently registered to practice law in Ohio.
{ } On June 7, 2004, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging respondent with eight counts of professional misconduct. When service of the complaint on respondent by certified mail could not be completed, the complaint was served on the Clerk of the Supreme Court as respondent's agent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). Respondent did not answer, and relator moved for default under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline granted the motion, making findings of misconduct and a recommendation, all of which the board adopted.
Misconduct
Count One
{ } In June 2002, Nancy E. Bradfield hired respondent to assist her in a child-custody matter. Bradfield entered into a fee agreement with respondent, agreed to pay her $225 per hour for the representation, and gave respondent a $2,500 retainer. Bradfield paid respondent an additional $5,000 in November 2002, including $2,500 to cover the cost of a video deposition of her former husband.
{ } For several months in 2002 and 2003, respondent did not reply when Bradfield tried to speak with her by telephone or through e-mail. As a result of respondent's failure to communicate, Bradfield terminated the representation in March 2003 and asked respondent to return her case file and provide an accounting of the services performed for the fees that Bradfield had paid. Respondent returned Bradfield's case file but has never provided an itemized accounting of the fees and services. Respondent also failed to return $2,500 to Bradfield after deciding not to take the video deposition of Bradfield's former husband.
{ } The board found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter) and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring prompt payment of the client's funds or other property in the lawyer's possession).
Count Two
{ } In January 2003, Jeanette M. Rafferty sought respondent's legal advice about a custody matter involving Rafferty's children. From the start of the representation, respondent repeatedly failed to respond when Rafferty tried to speak with her by telephone or through e-mail.
{ } Rafferty scheduled an appointment with respondent for March 15, 2003, to discuss her case and to sign any necessary documents. When Rafferty appeared at respondent's office for the appointment, respondent was not there, and Rafferty found a note attached to the office door indicating that respondent had violated her lease by failing to pay rent and that therefore the locks on the door had been changed.
{ } Rafferty received an e-mail message from respondent later that day apologizing for the missed appointment. She rescheduled the meeting and promised to complete and file the required custody paperwork. During a four-week period in March and April 2003, Rafferty called or e-mailed respondent 12 times about the status of the paperwork. Respondent never replied, prompting Rafferty to terminate the representation.
{ } Although respondent told Rafferty's new counsel that she had provided services to Rafferty worth approximately $800, respondent kept $2,500 of the $5,000 retainer that Rafferty had paid her. In addition, respondent never filed the custody documents for Rafferty as she had promised.
{ } The board found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 9-102(B)(4).
Coun
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.
|
|