 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Columbus Bar Association v. McCorkle6/8/2005
Submitted January 19, 2005
{ } Respondent, James McCorkle, formerly of Plain City, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0019801, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1976. On April 14, 2003, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged respondent with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause, including the parties' stipulations, and made findings of misconduct and a recommendation, all of which the board adopted.
Misconduct
{ } Respondent has not been registered as an attorney under Gov.Bar R. VI since September 1, 2003, and he no longer maintains an office at the registration address on file with the Attorney Registration Section of the Supreme Court of Ohio or lives at his former residence. Divorced in 2003, respondent now stays in motels or with friends, some of whom he knows through Alcoholics Anonymous.
{ } Respondent was a sole practitioner, sharing office space with several other lawyers and maintaining a high-volume personal-injury practice. In August 2002, however, respondent stopped working at his law office during business hours, coming by at night. He stopped communicating with his secretary and clients, attending scheduled court dates, and meeting statutes of limitations and other deadlines. He stopped responding to business mail, e-mail, and voice mail. Respondent also failed to maintain contact with courts in which clients' cases were pending or to properly withdraw from cases that he was unwilling or unable to manage. He further failed to conscientiously account for funds in his client trust account, to remit client's funds and files on request, and to otherwise protect his clients' legal interests.
{ } Richard D. Topper, an attorney with whom respondent shared office space, became concerned that respondent had abandoned his practice, and as required by DR 1-103(A), he reported the problem to relator.
{ } With respondent's permission and relator's approval, Topper contacted over 100 of respondent's clients, assuring them that their interests would be protected despite respondent's unavailability. Topper and another attorney in their office suite then arranged for the clients' files to be redistributed, with the clients' consent, to lawyers willing and able to handle the responsibility.
{ } By the end of 2002, the two attorneys managing respondent's caseload had satisfactorily handled some situations requiring prompt legal action to settle or save the claim. In an earlier personal-injury case, however, respondent had allowed a statute of limitations to run on a claim that he was actively attempting to settle on his client's behalf. That client, Patricia Marachi, ultimately sued respondent in a malpractice action and secured a default judgment against him.
{ } In overseeing respondent's practice, Topper also discovered that respondent had been appropriating client funds for his own use as well as advancing to clients funds that he was supposed to be holding in trust for other clients. The trust account from which these funds were drawn was largely a depository for sums received in settlement from insurance companies. By the time of Topper's discovery, respondent had depleted the entire account, over $50,000.
{ } Respondent has since replenished his trust account from money received in legal fees and inheritance, and all funds have now been distributed to the clients entitled to the money. Topper testified that none of these clients, with the exception of the client who sued for malpractice, have been prejudiced financially by respondent's withdrawals or his neglect.
{
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.
|
|