Relator. Toledo Bar Association the Supreme Court of Ohio ... creditors (hereafter "financial...
Transcript of Relator. Toledo Bar Association the Supreme Court of Ohio ... creditors (hereafter "financial...
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSON
GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINEOF
THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
In Re:
Complaint against
Beauregard Maximillion HarveyAttorney Reg. No. 0078717
Respondent,
Toledo Bar Association
Relator.
Case No. 11-012
Findings of Fact,
ORI6AL
11-1760
Conclusions of Law andRecommendation of the -Board of Commissioners onGrievances and Discipline ofthe Supreme Court of Ohio
This matter was heard on August 25, 2011 in Columbus before a panel consisting of
Patrick L. Sink, Judge Otho Eyster, and Lawrence R. Elleman, chair. None of the panel
members is from the appellate district from which the complaint arose or served on the probable
cause panel in this matter. Relator was represented by Gordon R. Barry and Michael A.
Bonfiglio. Respondent appeared pro se. The matter was substantially stipulated. Respondent
testified on cross and direct examination. There were no other witnesses.
OVERVIEW
{¶1} Respondent engaged in a pattern of failing to timely file documents in bankruptcy
court, which resulted in his clients' bankruptcy cases being dismissed without discharge, and
mishandling a litigation matter in municipal court. As a result of Respondent's voluntary
remedial actions, the bankruptcy cases generally were reopened at Respondent's expense and
bankruptcy discharges ultimately obtained. The bankruptcy clients suffered no pecuniary harm
as a result of Respondent's misconduct, The panel finds that Respondent committed multiple
violations of Prof. Cond. R. 1.3 [diligence and promptness], Prof. Cond. R. 1.4(a)(3) [failing to
keep client reasonably informed], and Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(d) [conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice]. The panel recommends that Respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for one year with six months stayed on the conditions that Respondent submit to
supervised probation with a monitor appointed by Relator in accordance with Gov. Bar R. V,
Section 9 during the period of his stayed suspension and that he commit no further misconduct.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Background Facts
{¶2} At the time of the misconduct, Respondent was subject to the Rules for the
Government of the Bar of Ohio and the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.
{¶3} Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2005. He is a 2001
graduate of the College of Law of the University of Toledo, and prior to his practice of law in
Ohio, he practiced in Illinois. He now practices as a sole practitioner sharing office space with
other attorneys. The primary focus of his practice is bankruptcy, criminal law, and divorce
cases. He has considerable consumer bankruptcy experience.
{¶4} The amended complaint contains four counts. Counts One and Two relate to
Respondent's representation as debtor's counsel for specific individual Chapter 7 bankruptcy
clients. These counts were submitted based solely on the parties' stipulations. (Stipulations at
¶3-16.) Count Three alleges a pattern and practice of misconduct relating to Respondent's
representation of twleve different bankruptcy clients. Five of the matters enumerated in Count
Three were fully stipulated (Stipulations at ¶17-21) and seven were contested. Count Four
involves misconduct with respect to a litigation matter in municipal court that was mostly
stipulated. (Stipulations at ¶22-24.)
2
{115} The alleged violations concerning the bankruptcy cases all involve Respondent's
failure to file required documents with the court, resulting in dismissals of his clients'
bankruptcy cases without discharges (subject to refiling). These documents include: (1) a court-
prescribed official form certifying completion of a financial management co.urse that must be
filed within 45 days (in certain circumstances 60 days) after the first date set for the meeting of
creditors (hereafter "financial management course certificate"); (2) a certificate that the debtor
has completed a credit counseling course that must be filed with the bankruptcy petition or
within fourteen days thereafter (hereafter "certificate of credit counseling"); and (3) evidence of
payments received by the debtor from his employer within 60 days before the filing of the
petition (hereafter "payment advices").
{¶6} During the relevant time period, Respondent had no effective office system for
monitoring due dates for filing the above-described documents, and he did not proactively
remind clients that such documents were due to be filed. Instead, Respondent relied on his
individual clients to cause the documents to be provided to him for filing. He did not routinely
follow up to see that he had received the documents from his client (or from the third-party
service provider that administered the educational course) or to see if the time for filing was
about to expire. In some cases, the documents were not provided to Respondent until after their
due date. In other cases, the documents were provided to Respondent in a timely manner, but he
still failed to file them with the court until long after they were due.
Count One (Kreamer)
{¶7} The client provided the financial management course certificate to Respondent in
a timely manner, but Respondent failed to file it with the court on time. The client's bankruptcy
case was dismissed by the court for failure to file the certificate on two separate occasions. Each
3
time Respondent refiled and paid the filing fee from his own pocket. Respondent failed to keep
his client informed of the status of her case and failed to respond to client requests for
information. (Stipulations at ¶3-9.) The panel finds that the stipulated facts prove by clear and
convincing evidence that Respondent violated Prof. Cond. R. 1.3, Prof. Cond. R. 1.4(a)(3) , and
Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(d).
Count Two (Sittler)
{¶8} The client provided the financial management course certificate to Respondent in
a timely matter, but Respondent failed to file it with the court on time. The client's bankruptcy
case was dismissed by the court for failure to file the certificate. Respondent refiled and paid the
filing fee from his own pocket, but Respondent did not immediately file the certificate. The
bankruptcy court issued a show cause order to Respondent for failure to follow the procedural
rules. Respondent failed to keep his client informed of the status of her case and failed to
respond to client requests for information. (Stipulations at ¶10-15.) The panel finds that the
stipulated facts prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Prof Cond. R.
1.3, Prof Cond. R. 1.4(a)(3), and Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(d).
Count Three (Pattern and Practice of Misconduct) (Stipulated Cases)
{¶9} Respondent stipulated to ule violations with respect to five bankruptcy cases. In
each case, the client's bankruptcy case was dismissed because Respondent failed to file the
financial management course certificate, although the certificate had been supplied to him on
behalf of his client in a timely manner. There were three such cases in 2008, one in 2009, and
one in 2010. In addition, during the calendar year 2009, Respondent was sanctioned by the
bankruptcy court on two occasions for failure to file necessary and appropriate documents and
was verbally admonished on the record on one occasion for his failure to timely file documents.
4
(Stipulations at ¶18-20.) Respondent has stipulated, and the panel hereby finds, that the
stipulated facts prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's misconduct
constitutes a pattern and practice of violating Prof. Cond. R. 1.3, Prof. Cond. R. 1.4(a)(3), and
Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(d). (Stipulation at ¶21.)
Count Three (Pattern and Practice of Misconduct) (Contested Cases)
{¶10} Although Respondent stipulated, and the panel so concludes, that his misconduct
as described in paragraph 9 of this report was sufficient to establish a pattern and practice as
alleged by the Relator, Respondent contested the allegations with regard to seven additional
bankruptcy cases. Much of the evidence at the hearing related to those seven cases.
{¶11} In five of the contested cases (Fair, Elchert, Freeman, Gunn, and Seiler), the
bankruptcy court closed the case without a discharge for failure to file the financial management
course certificate. In each such case, the client had, in fact, completed the financial management
course in a timely manner, but neither the client nor the third-party service provider of the
educational course had notified Respondent. Respondent did not proactively follow up to see
that the certificates were provided to him. In these cases, Respondent attended the first meeting
of creditors with the client and should have learned at that time that the financial management
course had been completed, but the certificate had not been received by him. Yet he did not
follow up in an appropriate manner.
{¶12} In addition, in one of the contested cases (Daughenbaugh), the bankruptcy court
did not dismiss the case for failure to file the financial management course certificate, but
instead, issued a show cause order for not doing so.
{¶13} In three of the seven contested cases (Daughenbaugh, Seiler, and Messenger), the
bankruptcy court issued a show cause order for failure to file the payment advices.
5
{¶14} In two of the seven contested cases (Daughenbaugh and Messenger), the
bankruptcy court issued show cause orders for failure to file the certificate of credit counseling.
There is evidence to suggest that this may have been Respondent's clerical error rather than
neglect.
{¶15} Respondent contends that his clients all received a form document directly from
the court (Relator's Ex. 10), and another packet of information from Respondent at the beginning
of his representation, that outlined the dates the various documents had to be filed and the
consequences of failure to file them. Respondent contested the allegation that these seven cases
were parf of a pattern and practice of misconduct because his clients were at fault for not
providing the documents or information to him so that he could file them with the court. The
panel rejects this argument. His clients are laymen. Respondent is a professional. The clients
paid him a fee (normally $800) for his expertise, diligence, and competence. Respondent should
have proactively monitored the cases to assure that the proper documents were being filed in a
timely manner.
{¶16} Notwithstanding the panel's conclusion in paragraph 15 above, the evidence with
respect to three of the contested cases do not constitute proof of the pattern and practice, in
whole or in part, as alleged by Relator. They are as follows:
• Freeman: The client in this case was very difficult to communicate with and did not
return telephone calls. (August 25, 2011 Hearing Tr. 33-34.) The evidence is
therefore insufficient to establish that Respondent violated Prof. Cond. R. 1.4(a)(3).
However, the client did attend the first meeting of creditors with Respondent and
Respondent should have learned at that meeting that the client had already taken the
financial management course, but the certificate had not been provided to
6
Respondent. He failed to follow up to see that the certificate was obtained.
Therefore, Respondent's conduct in connection with the Freeman case is part of his
pattern and practice of violation of Prof. Cond. R. 1.3 and Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(d).
. Gunn: The client terminated Respondent's services, but Respondent failed to file a
motion or notice of withdrawal with the court. Respondent testified that he did not
withdraw because all of the documents except for the financial management course
certificate had been filed. He believed that Gunn had completed the course and since
she would be representing herself, he assumed she would file the certificate herself.
(August 25, 2011 Hearing Tr. 37-38.) After the court dismissed the case without a
discharge, Gunn asked Respondent to reopen the case and to file the certificate, which
Respondent did without charge, except that Gunn paid the filing fee. While
Respondent should have filed a motion for leave to withdraw or a notice of
withdrawal, his failure to do so under the circumstances was not so egregious as to
warrant a finding that his representation of Gunn was a part of the pattern and
practice of violating Prof. Cond. R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), or 8.4(d).
Messenger: During the course of this case, the bankruptcy court issued three separate
show cause orders for failure to timely file required documents. The client did not
show up at the last show cause hearing, so the case was dismissed. (August 25, 2011
Hearing Tr. 52-59 and 96-97.) The case was not reopened. There is no evidence that
Messenger ever received a discharge. The evidence with respect to the Messenger
case was not fully developed at the hearing and therefore, is insufficient to establish
that Respondent's conduct was part of the pattern and practice as alleged.
7
{¶17} The panel concludes, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated
Prof. Cond. R. 1.3 and Prof Cond. R. 8.4(d) with respect to five of the seven contested cases
(Fair, Elchert, Freeman, Daughenbaugh, and Seiler), and that Respondent violated Prof. Cond.
R. 1.4(a)(3) with respect to four of the seven contested cases (Fair, Elchert, Daughenbaugh, and
Seiler). This misconduct provides further proof based on clear and convincing evidence that
Respondent engaged in a pattern and practice of misconduct as alleged in Count Three.
Count Four (Dickerson Municipal Court Case)
{1f18} Respondent was engaged by Dickerson to file a suit in small claims court for the
return of a$1,000 deposit that Dickerson had made in connection with a failed real estate
transaction. This was ultimately successful. Several weeks later, the case was transferred to the
municipal court regular docket and defendant filed a counterclaim against Dickerson for breach
of the real estate contract. Respondent failed to file an answer to defendant's counterclaim
against Dickerson. Defendant then filed a motion for default against Dickerson on the
counterclaim. Respondent was given leave to file a reply to the counterclaim on behalf of his
client, but he failed to do so. Default was entered against Dickerson. Respondent filed a motion
to vacate the default judgment that was granted and the court set the matter for further hearing on
August 9, 2010. However, Respondent and his client failed to appear at that hearing, which
resulted in a default judgment once again being granted against Dickerson. (Stipulations at ¶22-
23.)
{¶19} Respondent stipulated and the panel so concludes that his conduct in failing to file
a reply to the counterclaim and failing to inform his client of the default judgment constitutes
clear and convincing evidence of a violation of Prof. Cond. R. 1.3 and 1.4(a)(3). (Stipulation at
¶24.)
8
{¶20} Respondent testified that he had taken a fee of only $300 to successfully pursue
his client's claim for return of the $1,000 deposit in Small Claims Court, but he never agreed to
defend the later-filed counterclaim in municipal court. However, he did appear in municipal
court and he never filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. (August 25, 2011 Hearing Tr. 59-63.)
Therefore, the panel concludes that Respondent's failure to attend the August 9, 2010 hearing is
further clear and convincing proof of Respondent's misconduct as is stipulated in Count Four.
{4l21} Respondent subsequently settled with Dickerson by payment of $2,400 in
connection with his mishandling of this case. (August 25, 2011 Hearing Tr. 73.)
Respondent's Remediation Efforts
{¶22} In general, Respondent voluntarily paid the costs for refiling the bankruptcy
cases that had been dismissed without a discharge due to his failure to file documents and
charged no extra fee for reopening the cases. Respondent has settled w^ith Dickerson for his
mishandling of the municipal court case. Respondent, and the other bankruptcy attorneys with
whom he shares office space, have hired a paralegal to keep track of their bankruptcy court
calendars and have purchased a computer program to assist. Moreover, Respondent has
expressed a willingness, in the future, to proactively monitor his calendar and remind bankruptcy
clients when the time for filing certain documents is about to expire.
AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS
{¶23} The panel finds as aggravating factors that Respondent committed multiple
offenses and that he engaged in a pattern of misconduct. In addition, at the hearing, Respondent
attempted to justify some of his misconduct by blaming his clients. BCGD Proc. Reg. 10(B)(1).
{¶24} The panel finds the following mitigating factors: absence of prior disciplinary
record; absence of dishonest o r selfish motive; timely and good-faith effort to rectify the
9
consequences of his misconduct; and to alter his office practices in order to prevent it from
occurring again. Moreover, Respondent acknowledged and stipulated to numerous violations
and demonstrated a cooperative attitude at the hearing.' BCGD Proc. Reg. 10(B)(2).
RECOMMENDED SANCTION
{1125} Relator recommends a sanction of a one-year suspension with six months stayed.
Respondent acknowledges that a sanction is warranted and urges that the sanction be less severe.
{¶26} Relator cites as authority for its recommended sanction Cleveland Metro. Bar
Assn. v. Nance, 124 Ohio St.3d 57, 2009-Ohio-5957 (one-year suspension with six months
stayed for multiple neglect violations and failure to file court orders). More recently, the
Supreme Court has decided several cases where multiple instances of neglect and failure to
properly communicate with clients predominated the rule violations. Disciplinary Counsel v.
Hoppel, 129 Ohio St.3d 53, 201 1-Ohio-2672 (two-year suspension with 18 months stayed); Erie-
Huron Grievance Commt v. Stoll, 127 Ohio St.3d 290, 2010-Ohio-5985 (two-year suspension
with one-year stayed); and Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hunt, 127 Ohio St.3d 390, 2010-Ohio-6148 (six-
month suspension). In Hoppell and Stoll, Respondents' conduct was more egregious than in the
current case. In Hunt, Respondent's conduct was less egregious than in the current case, except
that Hunt failed to cooperate in the grievance process.
{¶27} The panel recommends that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for
one year with six months stayed on the conditions that he submit to supervised probationwith a
monitor appointed by the Relator in accordance with Gov. Bar R. V, Section 9 during the period
of his stayed suspension, and that he commit no further misconduct.
I There were stress factors in Respondent's personal life at the time of his misconduct, but the proof ofstress and its effect on his misconduct was insufficient to be considered in mitigation.
10
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V, Section (L), the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio considered this matter on October 7, 2011. The Board
adopted the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of the panel and
recommends that the Respondent, Beauregard Maximillion Harvey, be suspended from the
practice of law in Ohio for one year with six months stayed on the conditions that he (1) submit
to supervised probation with a monitor appointed by the Relator in accordance with Gov. Bar R.
V, Section 9 during the period of his stayed suspension, and (2) commit no further misconduct.
The Board further recommends that the cost of these proceedings be taxed to Respondent in any
disciplinary order entered, so that execution may issue.
Pursuant to the order of the Board of Commissioners onGrievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio,I hereby certify the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusionsof Law, and RecomAendations as those of the Board.
RICT HA^OVE, Secretary
Board of Commissioners onGrievances and Discipline ofthe Supreme Court of Ohio
11
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
OFTHE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
In re:
Complaint against:
No. 11-012
BEAUREGARD MAXIMILLION HARVEY : STIPULATIONS
RESPONDENT,
vs.
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION
RELATOR.
AUG 2 5 2Q1}
BOARD 0" C4/1'aiPeF!v.fi',^iisiYCRq^
Now come the Relator and Respondent and stipulate and agree that all of the following
facts are true, and may be accepted as true by the Hearing Panel and Board of Commissioners for
all purposes in this litigation, without further evidence:
1. The Toledo Bar Association ("Relator") through its Certified Grievance Committee is
authorized to file this complaint pursuant to Rule V, Section 3(C) and Rule V, Section (4) of the
Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio.
2. Beauregard Maximillion Harvey ("Respondent"), Supreme Court Registration Number
0078717, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Ohio on May 9, 2005, and is subject to
the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio.
3. Respondent was retained by Laurie Kreamer to file a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division. The
petition was filed on February 3, 2008.
4. As part of a debtor's requirement to obtain a discharge in a Chapter 7 Bankraptcy
proceeding, debtors must take a financial management course and file the certificate evidencing the
completion of said course within 45 days of the date first set for the 341 Creditor's Meeting.
5. Grievant performed the financial management course on March 21, 2008 and timely
furnished Respondent a copy of the certificate. Respondent failed to timely file the certificate.
6. As a result of the negligence ofRespondent, Grievant's Bankruptcyproceeding was closed
without a Discharge on June 4, 2008. On December 17, 2008, Respondent filed a Motion to Reopen
the case and paid out of his own pocket the filing fee of $260.00. The case was subsequently
reopened on February 24, 20009, and the Court ordered the certificate to be filed byMarch 31, 2009.
7. On Apri16, 2009, the case was closed once again without Discharge because Respondent
failed to timely file the certificate with the Court. On May 7, 2009, Respondent filed a second
Motion to Reopen the case and once again paid out ofhis own pocket the sum of $260.00 as a filing
fee. Pursuant to the Motion, the case was reopened on June 22, 2009 and the Order reopening the
case granted Respondent until July 21, 2009 to file the certificate of financial management
completion. Respondent filed the certificate on July 1, 2009 and thereafter, the Court granted
Grievant a Discharge on August 19, 2009. During the course of this proceeding in the Bankruptcy
Court, the Clerk of the Bankruptcy issued one corrective entry and four (4) notices of filing
deficiency for documents that were filed incorrectly.
2
8. Respondent failed to keep Grievant informed of the status of her case, and failed to
respond to requests for information from the Grievant.
9. As a result of Respondent's actions, he has violated the Ohio Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule 1.3 - failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, Rule 1.4(a)(3) - failing
to keep client reasonably informed and comply with requests for information, and Rule 8.4(d) -
engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
10. Respondent was retained by Bonnie Sittler to file a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northem District of Ohio, Western Division. The
petition was filed on July 4, 2009.
11. As part of the Debtor's requirement to obtain a discharge in a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
proceedings, debtors must take a financial management course and file the certificate evidencing the
completion of said course within 45 days of the date first set for the 341 Creditor's Meeting.
12. Grievant performed the fmancial management course on July 17, 2009 and timely
furnished Respondent a copy of the certificate. Respondent failed to timely file the certificate.
13. As a result of the negligence of Respondent, Grievant's Bankruptcy proceeding was
closed without a Discharge on October 29, 2009. OnNovember 2, 2009, Respondent filed a Motion
to Reopen the case and paid out of his own pocket the filing fee of $260.00. The case was
subsequently reopened on November 3,2009, and on November 12, 2009, a Show Cause Order was
issued to Respondent for failure to follow the procedural rules, to wit; filing the certificate of
completion of the personal finance management class.
14. Thereafter, on November 16, 2009, Respondent filed the appropriate document with the
3
Baiiln-uptcy Court and on November 17, 2009, the Grievant received their discharge.
15. Respondent failed to keep Grievant informed of the status of her case and failed to
respond to requests for information from the Grievant.
16. As a result of Respondent's actions, he has violated the Ohio Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule 1.3 - failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, Rule 1.4(a)(3) - failing
to keep client reasonably infonned and comply with requests for information, and Rule 8.4(d) -
engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration ofjustice.
17. In addition to the failure to file the certificate of completion of financial management in
the above-referenced Kreamer and Sittler matters, there were forty-two (42) other cases filed by
Respondent in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Westem
Division, in the calendar year 2008, and three (3) of those cases were closed without a Discharge
because Respondent failed to file the timely obtained certificates of completion of financial
management class: In Re: KrieQar, No. 08-36259; In Re: Yglesias, No. 08-31632; In Re: Bowman ,
No. 08-30898.
18. In the calendar year 2009, there was one (1) case, In Re: Gibson No. 09-32716, filed by
Respondent in the United States Bankraptcy Court for the Northem District of Ohio, Western
Division, that was closed without a Discharge because of Respondent's failure to file the financial
management course certificate which had been timely obtained by the debtor.
19. In addition, during the calendar year 2009, Respondent had been sanctioned by the
Honorable Richard L. Speer, Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District
of Ohio, Western Division, on two (2) occasions for his failure to timely file necessary and
4
appropriate documents, and was been verbally admonished on the record on one (1) occasion forhis
failure to timely file documents.
20. In the calendar year 2010, through October 31, 2010, there was one (1) case, In Re:
Richardson, No. 10-31307, filed by Respondent in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, that was closed without a Discharge, because of
Respondent's failure to timely file the financial management course certificate which had been
timely obtained by the debtor.
21. Said actions on the part of Respondent constitute a patteru and practice of violating the
Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, to wit: Rule 1.3 - failing to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness, Rule 1.4(a)(3) - failing to keep the clients reasonably informed and comply with
requests for information, Rule 8.4(d) - engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration
of justice.
22. At some point prior to June 16, 2009, Respondent was retained by Charles L. Dickerson
to represent him in a small claims case to prosecute an action for the return of One Thousand Dollars
($1,000.00) earnest money being held by a realtor after a failed real estate transaction.
23. On June 16, 2009, Respondent filed a Complaint against Loss Realty Group, Thomas
Schetter, and Monica Clark. On July 20, 2009, the matter came on for trial in the Small Claims
Division of Toledo Municipal Court, and the Magistrate issued an Order to return the escrowed
funds to the Mr. Dickerson. On July 29, 2009, defendant Monica Clark filed objections to the
Magistrate's Opinion and the Magistrate's findings were set aside by the Trial Court. On October
30, 2009, the matter was transferred from the Small Claims Division to the regular division of the
5
Toledo Municipal Court and defendant, Monica Clark, was given thirty (30) days to file an answer.
On November 30, 2009, defendant Monica Clark filed an Answer and Counterclaim against Mr.
Dickerson which matter was set for trial on March 15, 2010. On February 19, 2010, defendant
Monica Clark filed a Motion for Default Judgment for the failure of Mr. Dickerson to file an answer.
On March 15, 2010, a pre-trial was held and Respondent was present in the Court and moved the
Court for leave to file an answer and counterclaim on behalf of Mr. Dickerson, which was granted by
the Court. On March 24,2010, the trial was re-set for May 17, 2010. On Apri127, 2010, defendant
Monica Clark filed a Motion for Default Judgment which was granted. On June 29, 2010,
Respondent filed a Motion to Vacate the Default Judgment on behalf of Mr. Dickerson which was
granted and a further hearing was set for August 9, 2010. On August 9, 2010, a hearing was held and
Respondent and.his client failed to appear resulting in a default judgment once again being granted
against Mr. Dickerson. On August 3, 2011, counsel for defendant Monica Clark filed a Notice of
Satisfaction of Judgment and a Motion to Vacate Default Judgment against Charles & Melinda
Dickerson and to Dismiss Case.
24. Respondent's conduct in failing to file an Answer to the Counterclaim and failing to
inform his client of the default judgment constitutes a violation of the Ohio Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule 1.3, which provides a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
representing a client, and fiirther a violation of Rule 1.4 which provides that the lawyer shall keep the
client reasonably informed about the status of the matter.
Respectfully submitted,
6
Beau Harvey (007871425 Jefferson Ave., SToledo, Ohio 43604Telephone: (419) 720-0400
Respondent
.^. ZU
Gordon R. Barry, Esq. 010883)Barry & Feit420 Madison Ave., Suite 1010Toledo, Ohio 43604Telephone: (419) 241-6285
Michael A. Bonfiglio (0029478)Bar CounselToledo Bar Association311 N. Superior St.Toledo, Ohio 43604-1454Telephone: (419) 242-4969
Attorneys for Relator
7