BEFORE THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RECEIVED OF

THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO NOV 2 8 20!6 In re:

Complaint against

Timothy Raymond Dougherty, Esq. 1308 W Mound Street Columbus, OH 43223

Attorney Registration No. (0064500)

Respondent,

Disciplinary Counsel 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 325 Columbus, Ohio 43215-7411

Relator.

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

- 0

COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATE

(Rule V of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio.)

Now comes the relator and alleges that Timothy Raymond Dougherty, an Attorney at

Law, duly admitted to the practice of law in the state of Ohio, is guilty of the following

misconduct:

1. Respondent, Timothy Raymond Dougherty, was admitted to the practice of law in the

state of Ohio on May 15, 1995. Respondent is subject to the Rules of Professional

Conduct and the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio.

Background Information

2. Since 1993, Angela Granata has owned and operated a family business called Columbus

Microfilm, Inc. ("CMI").

3. By July 2004, CMI had encountered severe financial problems, which prompted the filing

of a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Petition and a receiver being appointed to manage the day-to­

day operations ofCML

4. In 2011, as the bankruptcy was winding down, Granata believed that the receiver sold a

condominium owned by CMI in violation of a bankruptcy court order; consequently,

Granata was interested in filing suit against the receiver.

5. In addition to the CMI matter, Granata was also the defendant in a 2010 collections case

involving unpaid legal fees entitled, Brunner Firm Co LPA v. Granata, Case No. IO CV

009695, which was pending in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (hereinafter

referred to as the "Collections Matter"). The plaintiff was trying to collect on a 2007

default judgment against Granata in the amount of$105,894.85. Granata maintained that

the plaintiff's lawyer, Kenneth Donchatz, was harassing her.

The CMI, Collections, and Forgery Matters

6. In April 2011, respondent was an adjunct professor at Franklin University and Angela

Granata was a student in one ofrespondent' s classes.

7. On or around April 27, 201 l, Granata met with respondent to discuss the CMI and

collections matters.

8. Respondent agreed to represent Granata on the CMI and collections matters.

9. During the initial meeting, Granata asked respondent to provide her with a "commitment"

letter outlining his fees and legal plans. Although respondent agreed, he never provided

either document.

10. During the initial meeting, Granata, who was on disability, stressed how important it was

for respondent to file the CMI lawsuit against the receiver within six months because the

-2-

IRS was threatening garnishment. Respondent asked that Granata provide him with a

chronological outline of the CMI matter.

11. At the close of the initial meeting, Granata gave respondent a check for $700; however,

respondent failed to deposit the unearned fees into an IOLTA. Rather, respondent

deposited them into his personal checking account at the BMI Federal Credit Union,

Account No. xxx246.

12. On or about May 13, 2011, Granata sent respondent a chronology of events relating to the

CMI matter.

13. A few days later, Granata met with respondent at Cup O'Joe in Clintonville, Ohio.

During the meeting, respondent told Granata that he was still working on the commitment

letter, but that he needed $500 for expenses. Granata paid respondent $500 that day and

again reminded respondent that she needed the CMI lawsuit filed as soon as possible.

14. On May 20, 2011, respondent filed a Notice of Appearance in the collections matter,

Case No. IO CV 009695.

15. In July 2011, Granata again met with respondent regarding the CMI matter. Respondent

assured Granata that the case was proceeding as planned and that he could get the case

filed by September after Labor Day. Respondent agreed to meet again on August 8,

2011.

16. On August 8, 2011, respondent called Granata and cancelled the meeting.

17. For the next several months, Granata tried to contact respondent; however, respondent

failed to respond to her attempts to reach him.

18. In December 2011, respondent called Granata and said that he was busy with other

projects, but that he wanted to meet and get the CMI case filed by January 2012.

-3-

19. On January 9, 2012, Granata met with respondent at the Cup O'Joe in Clintonville, Ohio

at which time respondent promised to file suit in the CMI matter by the end of January

2012.

20. By this time-January 2012-Granata had paid respondent over one thousand dollars;

however, respondent still had not filed suit in the CMI matter.

21. Between January and July 2012, Granata met with respondent regarding the CMI and

collections matters. Each time, respondent promised that he would file the CMI case.

22. On or around March 20, 2012, respondent made his only court appearance in the

collections matter and settled it by entering into an agreement for Granata to pay The

Brunner Firm $100 per month.

23. On or about July 13, 2012, respondent contacted Granata and requested an additional

payment in legal fees, as he was leaving for a family vacation and needed the money.

24. Granata met respondent at a McDonald's near respondent's home, and presented him

with a check for $1,000. Respondent promised he would have the CMI case filed by the

end of July 2012.

25. Over the next several months, Granata paid respondent at least an additional $2,000;

however, respondent never filed the CMI lawsuit.

26. On or about February 10, 2013, respondent informed Granata that he was taking over a

friend's criminal law practice. At that time, respondent asked for and received another

$500 from Granata. By this time, Granata had paid respondent at least $5,700. 1

27. On or about March 10, 2013, Granata met with respondent and Christopher Cicero, a

suspended lawyer, at Cicero's law office, which respondent was now occupying, to

I Upon information and belief, respondent deposited all funds he received from Granata into his operating or personal account at BM!. ·

-4-

discuss her legal matters. Respondent introduced Cicero as his law partner, despite the

fact that Cicero was not permitted to practice law, nor had respondent registered to

employ or contract with a suspended lawyer as required under Gov. Bar R. V(8)(G).2

28. During the March I 0, 2013 meeting, Granata discussed a third legal matter (hereinafter

referred to as the "Forgery Matter"), which was pending in the Franklin County Court of

Common Pleas, Case No. 10 CV 5544, entitled Granata v. Stamatakos, et. al. Attorney

Adam Hubble represented Granata in the forgery matter. At the time, motions for

summary judgment were pending and the case was scheduled for mediation on April 19,

2013 and trial on April 29, 2013.

29. After explaining the forgery matter, respondent and Cicero advised Granata to fire

Hubble in the forgery case. Respondent assured Granata that he would get the case

continued. Cicero prepared a letter of tennination for Granata to provide to Hubble.

30. On or about April 18, 2013, Granata fired Hubble in the forgery case.

3 !. On April 18, 2013, Hubble filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Granata, stating in

the motion that he had been fired that morning and that Granata indicated her intent to

retain new counsel.

32. On April 19, 2013, respondent appeared in comt on behalf of Granata; however, he had

not filed a notice of appearance; consequently, the mediation continued as scheduled with

Granata having to appear without counsel.

33. On April 24, 2013, the court granted the opposing party's motion for summary judgment

in the forgery case.

34. Shortly thereafter, respondent advised Granata that he would not appeal the summary

judgment in the forgery case without additional funds.

2 Effective January 1, 2015, Gov. Bar R.V(8)(G) became Gov. Bar R.V(23).

-5-

35. Granata explained to respondent that she did not have cash, but offered an autographed

copy of The Who's "Quadrophenia" album, which Granata estimated to be worth several

thousand dollars. Respondent agreed to hold the album as "collateral"; however,

respondent perfonned no work on the appeal, forcing Granata to file the appeal pro se.

36. In August 2013, opposing counsel in the collections matter filed a Motion for an Order to

Show Cause why Granata should not be held in contempt for failing to make the agreed-

upon $100 monthly payments. (See ,i 22). The motion was purportedly served on

Granata, not respondent.

37. The court granted the motion and ordered Granata to appear in court on September 20,

2013; however, Granata failed to appear.

38. On September 24, 2013, Granata sent respondent the following email regarding the

collections matter:

Were you able to get a continuance on the [collections] case?

[W]ere you able to talk to Donchatz as to why he did not conespond with you and the attorney of record?

Why is there a capias on me? I just received word that the sheriff is now involved.

What is going on???

Please call me!

3 9. Respondent failed to respond to Granata' s email.

-6-

40. On or about October 14, 2013, Granata again sent an email to respondent, which stated:

Have you filed the motions against Donchatz? The motion to compel on the shooting and the 6 figure settlement he stated in court?

In my last letter, I outlined a lawsuit against him and Brunner. Do you have that completed? Did you get him (Donchatz) to back off on me? It's just plain old harassment.

Let me know Angela Granata

41. Respondent failed to reply to Granata 's email.

42. On or about November 25, 2013, Granata met with respondent and followed up the next

day via email with a written summary of the meeting.

43. In her email summary, Granata:

• Asked respondent for an accounting of the time spent on the CMI matter and that it be provided by December 9, 2013;

• Informed respondent that, due to his failure to file the CMI lawsuit, she had to hire another lawyer to file the CMI lawsuit; and, among other things,

• Outlined reasons to file a lawsuit against the lawyers in the collections matter.

44. Respondent failed to respond to Granata's November 25, 2013 email.

45. In April 2014, Granata contacted respondent via email and again requested an accounting

of respondent's legal fees and the return of the autographed Who Quadrophenia album.

Granata advised respondent that she would pick up her file, including the album, the

following day. Respondent did not reply.

46. The following day, Granata appeared at respondent's office to retrieve her file.

Respondent was not present, but Cicero's stepson gave Granata a few items and indicated

-7-

that the items comprised her entire file. The file was missing many items including the

autographed album.

4 7. To date, respondent has not accounted for the funds that Granata paid to him, refunded

any of the fees collected, or returned her complete file, including the autographed album.

48. Respondent's conduct as alleged herein violates:

• Prof. Cond. R. 1.3 [ A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness

in representing a client] by neglecting and failing to perform legal services in the

CMI, collections, and forgery matters;

• Prof. Cond. R. 1.4(a)(3) [A lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed

about the status of the matter] and Prof. Cond. R. 1.4(a)(4) [A lawyer shall

comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the

client]; by failing to respond to respondent's inquiries regarding her various legal

matters and by failing to provide an accounting of the funds she provided to

respondent;

• Prof. Cond. R. l.5(a) [A lawyer shall not collect a clearly excessive fee] by

collecting at least $5,700 yet performing minimal work on Granata's behalf;

• Prof. Cond. R. l.15(a) [A lawyer shall hold property of clients separate from the

lawyer's own property] by depositing the initial $700 payment into his operating

account;

• Prof. Cond. R. 1.16( d) [ As part of the termination of representation, a lawyer shall

takes steps, to the extent reasonably practicable, to protect the client's interests,

including notice to the client, time to obtain new counsel, delivering all papers

-8-

and property to the client for which the client is entitled] by failing to return her

complete file and property;

• Prof. Cond. R. 5.5(a) [A lawyer shall not assist another to practice law in a

jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession] by allowing a

suspended lawyer to have direct client contact and provide legal advice to a client;

and,

• Gov. Bar R. V(8)(G) [Failing to register the employment ofa suspended lawyer].

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V and the Rules of Professional Conduct, relator

alleges that respondent is chargeable with misconduct; therefore, relator requests that respondent

be disciplined pursuant to Rule V of the Rules of the Government of the Bar of Ohio.

Disciplinary

Josea. car "mi (0074786) Chi As istan ff sciplinary Counsel 250 Civ· Cent · rive, Suite 325 Col us, Ohio 215-7411 614.461.0256 614.461.7205 -fax Joseph.Caligiuri@sc.ohio.gov

-9-

CERTIFICATE

The undersigned, Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, of the Office of Disciplinary

Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio hereby certifies that Joseph M. Caligiuri is duly

authorized to represent relator in the premises and has accepted the responsibility of prosecuting

the complaint to its conclusion. After investigation, relator believes reasonable cause exists to

warrant a hearing on such complaint.

Dated: November 28, 2016

Scott J. Drexe , D sciplinary Counsel

-10-