|
|
| 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases |
Public Information Home
Court Suspends Four Attorneys
In separate disciplinary actions announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio suspended the law licenses of attorneys John A. Lord of North Royalton, Jacqueline Souel Downey of Columbus, Derek A. Farmer of Gahanna and Jerry C. Stollings, formerly of Greenville.
2006-0463. Disciplinary Counsel v. Lord, 2006-Ohio-5341.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 04-071. John Albert Lord, Attorney Registration No. 0072696, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
O'Donnell, J., dissents and would suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for two years.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-5341.pdf
(Nov. 1, 2006) The Supreme Court voted 6-1 to indefinitely suspend North Royalton attorney John Lord for a pattern of misconduct involving neglect of legal matters entrusted to him by six different clients. The Court adopted findings by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that Lord accepted fee advances from each client but subsequently failed to prepare or to file required legal documents and in several cases failed to appear at court proceedings, resulting in dismissal of the clients' legal actions.
The board also found that Lord lied to several of his clients about the status of their cases to cover up his neglect, failed to respond to inquiries from disciplinary authorities in a timely manner and made false statements to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The Court agreed with the board's conclusion that Lord's conduct violated multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including state attorney discipline rules that prohibit neglect of entrusted client legal matters, failure to pursue the lawful objectives of a client, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty or misrepresentation.
In imposing an indefinite license suspension as the appropriate sanction for this misconduct, the Court's per curiam opinion noted that Lord had “ignored warning signals from courts, clients and (Disciplinary Counsel) that should have alerted him that his careless approach to the practice of law is unacceptable. His many ethical missteps, coupled with the misleading half-truths that he has offered to clients, courts and fellow lawyers, convince us that he is not currently fit to be an active member of a profession grounded in attention to detail, candor and respect for the interests of those who need legal services.”
The majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Alice Robie Resnick, Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O'Connor and Judith Ann Lanzinger. Justice Terrence O'Donnell dissented, indicating that he would impose a two-year suspension.
Contacts
Stacy Solochek Beckman, 614.461.0256, for the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
John A. Lord, pro se: 440.582.2374.
2006-1188. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Downey, 2006-Ohio-5346.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 04-008. Jacqueline Souel Downey, Attorney Registration No. 0022818, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-5346.pdf
(Nov. 1, 2006) The license of Columbus attorney Jacqueline Souel Downey has been indefinitely suspended by the Supreme Court for neglecting legal matters entrusted to her by clients who sought her assistance in three immigration matters and an employment discrimination suit.
The Court agreed with findings of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that Downey failed to comply with attorney discipline rules in these cases when she failed to take necessary actions to advance her clients' cases or to react to court rulings within the time frames necessary to preserve the clients' legal interests. In one case, the board found that Downey agreed to represent a client seeking to appeal the denial of an employment authorization and petition for political asylum in the U.S., but failed to file a brief within the legal deadline and did not notify the client that the immigration court had dismissed her appeal as a result of Downey's neglect.
In a second case, an immigration judge improperly dismissed a petition Downey had filed on behalf of a client, but Downey failed to alert the client or pursue corrective action within the prescribed 180-day time limit, prejudicing the client's opportunity to reinstate his claim. In a third case, Downey told a client that he need not appear on a scheduled hearing date because she had obtained a continuance in deportation proceedings. However the continuance request was filed late and when neither Downey nor the client appeared for the hearing, the court proceeded to issue a deportation order.
In a 7-0 per curiam decision, the Court affirmed the board's findings that Downey's acts and omissions had violated, among others, the state attorney discipline rules that prohibit neglect of client legal matters, failure to carry out a contract of employment, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney's fitness to practice.
In setting the sanction for her misconduct, the Court noted that Downey had previously been suspended from practice in 1992, and that she had voluntarily closed her practice and changed her attorney registration status to “inactive” shortly after the incidents involved in this complaint as a result of personal and family medical issues. The Court concurred that the sanction agreed to by Downey and the Columbus Bar Association, an indefinite suspension, was appropriate.
The Justices also ordered that, as prerequisites for any future reinstatement of her license, Downey must maintain and complete the terms of a mental health treatment contract with the Ohio Lawyers' Assistance Program, be evaluated by a mental health professional and found capable of returning to the competent and ethical practice of law, reimburse the Court's Client Security Fund for any payments made to Downey's clients based on her misconduct and enter into binding arbitration with any clients still seeking recovery for the grievances addressed in today's decision.
Contacts
Bruce Campbell, 614.340.2053, for the
Columbus Bar Association.
Dianna Anelli, 614.228.7710, for Jacqueline Souel Downey.
2006-0491. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Farmer, 2006-Ohio-5342.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 04-046. Derek A. Farmer, Attorney Registration No. 0071654, is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with one year stayed on conditions.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer and O'Donnell, JJ., dissent and would suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, with six months stayed.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-5342.pdf
(Nov. 1, 2006) Gahanna attorney Derek A. Farmer has been suspended from the practice of law for two years, with one year of that term stayed on conditions, for multiple disciplinary violations that Farmer committed while representing two prison inmates. The Supreme Court adopted findings of professional misconduct by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline, including that Farmer charged excessive fees for minimal legal work on behalf of these clients, failed to maintain accurate time records to document his professional services, and failed to refund unearned legal fees upon request.
The disciplinary board found that Farmer persuaded inmate Charles Martin and his family to hire Farmer by essentially promising, despite overwhelming evidence of Martin's guilt, that Farmer could obtain Martin's early release from prison sentences for aggravated murder, attempted murder, aggravated robbery and rape. Upon hire, Farmer withdrew an appellate brief filed by Martin's previous attorney. Farmer then collected more than $8,900 in legal fees for, among other claimed services, preparing a purportedly new appellate brief and investigating whether an important prosecution witness might recant her testimony and thereby allow a new trial.
Farmer's “new” brief was virtually identical to the brief that his predecessor had filed. Moreover, Farmer lied to the Martin family about pursuing the promised investigation and the likelihood of any success. The Martin family ultimately discharged Farmer and asked for the return of Martin's papers and all unearned fees. Farmer was unable to account for his fees and repaid nothing.
In a second case, inmate Searcy Rutledge and his girlfriend, Stella Moore, paid Farmer $5,000 based in part on Farmer's overly optimistic assurances that he could obtain Rutledge's release from a prison sentence of 15 years to life for murder. Farmer met with Moore on a number of occasions and assisted her with her legal problems over the next 20 months, but he never filed any action to secure a new trial for Rutledge or to otherwise obtain his client's release from prison. When Moore subsequently asked for a refund of $4,000 from the fees she had paid to Farmer, he failed to comply and failed to account for the fees he had earned in representing either Rutledge or Moore.
Based on these and other improprieties, the disciplinary board found that Farmer had violated state attorney discipline rules in these cases by making unsupportable promises of success to obtain employment, by making false and misleading statements regarding the “new” brief and use of an investigator in the Martin case, by charging clearly excessive fees, by failing to keep complete and accurate records to document his services, and by failing to promptly repay funds in his possession to which his clients were entitled.
In setting a sanction for this misconduct, a 5-2 majority of the Court determined that the board's recommendation of a one-year suspension with six months stayed was too lenient. Based on the severity of Farmer's misconduct and the weight of aggravating factors, the Court imposed a two-year license suspension, but stayed the second year on the conditions that Farmer serve under a one-year probation to include monitoring of his practice and that he refund to Martin, Rutledge, and Moore all but $1,000 of the fees he collected from them.
The majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Alice Robie Resnick, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O'Connor and Judith Ann Lanzinger. Justices Paul E. Pfeifer and Terrence O'Donnell dissented, indicating that they would impose a one-year license suspension with six months stayed.
Contacts
Bruce A. Campbell, 614.340.2053, for the
Columbus Bar Association.
David C. Greer, 937.223.3277, for Derek Farmer.
2006-1146. Disciplinary Counsel v. Stollings, 2006-Ohio-5345.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 05-074. Jerry Chad Stollings, Attorney Registration No. 0073342, is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-5345.pdf
(Nov. 1, 2006) The law license of attorney Jerry Chad Stollings, who currently resides in Kokomo, Indiana but who practiced in Greenville, Ohio, during 2002 and 2003, has been suspended for six months for professional misconduct. The suspension was agreed to by Stollings and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel as part of a consent-to-discipline proceeding that did not require oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
The Court unanimously adopted the findings of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that Stollings neglected an entrusted legal matter when he failed to file a notice to preserve the civil lawsuit of a client after receiving a court notice that the suit would be dismissed if notice was not received.
After failing to file the necessary notice, and being notified by the court that his client's case had been dismissed as a result, Stollings did not advise the client that his case had been dismissed but instead sent a series of false and misleading communications to the client over the ensuing 14 months suggesting that his case remained active and that Stollings, who had by then relocated to Indiana, was working with another Greenville-area lawyer to pursue a settlement. When this deception ultimately unraveled, Stollings and his law firm paid the client $10,000, the amount the client had sought in the dismissed civil suit, and Stollings also promised to pay an additional $5,000.
The Court also agreed with the board's conclusions that Stollings had violated the state attorney discipline rules that prohibit failure to carry out a contract of professional employment, conduct that prejudices or damages a client, conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty or misrepresentation and conduct that reflects adversely on an attorney's fitness to practice law.
Pointing out that the presumptive penalty for attorney conduct that involves deliberate dishonesty or deception of a client is an actual suspension from practice, the Court accepted the parties' agreed-upon sanction of a six-month license suspension. In its decision, the Court noted that Stollings lack of prior disciplinary offenses, full disclosure and cooperation during the disciplinary process and voluntary restitution of the full amount his client had sought in the lawsuit “speaks favorably of the respondent's good character and bodes well for his future return to the competent and ethical practice of law.”
Contacts
Stacy Solochek Beckman, 614.461.0256, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Jerry Chad Stollings, pro se: 765.453.9600.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."