 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplinary Counsel v. Tyack11/16/2005
rn her case file, respondent did not reply.
{ } The board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (barring conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 6-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4).
Count Seven
{ } Respondent deposited the retainers that she received from Bradfield, Easton-Jasinsky, and Rafferty in 2002 and 2003 into a bank account that was not an identified IOLTA account. The board concluded that she had used the account for client funds as well as her own personal funds from December 2001 until the account was closed by the bank in August 2003.
{ } In July 2003, respondent wrote a $28 check from this account to cover the filing fees for a client's case. The check was returned for insufficient funds. The clerk's office sent two collection letters to respondent seeking payment for the filing fees, but respondent did not reply.
{ } The board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 9-102(A) (requiring lawyers to maintain client funds in a separate, identifiable bank account).
Count Eight
{ } Relator sent respondent multiple letters and tried to speak with respondent by telephone during the investigation of the grievances filed by respondent's former clients. Respondent did not reply and never filed an answer to relator's complaint or to the motion for default.
{ } The board found that respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring attorneys to cooperate with and assist in any disciplinary investigation).
Sanction
{ } In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline ("BCGD Proc.Reg."). As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, and harmed vulnerable victims. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), and (h). The one mitigating factor cited by the board was respondent's lack of any prior disciplinary record. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).
{ } Relator recommended that respondent's license to practice law be indefinitely suspended for her misconduct. The master commissioner and the board accepted this recommendation.
{ } We agree that respondent violated all of the provisions recited above, and we also agree that an indefinite suspension is appropriate. As we have consistently held, neglect of legal matters and the failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation warrant an indefinite suspension from the practice of law. Disciplinary Counsel v. Treneff, 104 Ohio St.3d 336, 2004-Ohio-6562, 819 N.E.2d 695, 16. And the act of accepting retainers or legal fees and failing to carry out contracts of employment is tantamount to theft of the fee from the client. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moushey, 104 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-Ohio-6897, 819 N.E.2d 1112, 16. Respondent's misconduct reflects poorly on the legal profession and caused harm to the clients whose legal matters she neglected.
{ } Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR, O'DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur.
|