CourtListener opinion 11152995

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 95 Ohio St.3d 113.]

 OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. EASTERWOOD.
 [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Easterwood, 2002-Ohio-1942.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Engaging in conduct
 adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—Engaging in conduct
 involving moral turpitude—Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
 administration of justice—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter—Failing
 to carry out contract of professional employment—Engaging in conduct
 involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Neglecting or
 refusing to assist in disciplinary investigation—Commingling client funds
 with personal funds.
 (No. 01-2176—Submitted January 30, 2002—Decided April 24, 2002.)
 ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
 Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-13.
 __________________
 Per Curiam.
 {¶ 1} On January 26, 2001, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a
seven-count complaint charging respondent, Terry Scott Easterwood of St.
Clairsville, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0018255, with numerous violations of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent answered, and the matter was
submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court ("board").
 {¶ 2} Based on stipulations of the parties, the panel found that respondent
sought treatment in 1999 for substance abuse from Crossroads Counseling Service
"Crossroads." Although respondent assured representatives of the Ohio Lawyers
Assistance Program ("OLAP") in January 2000 that he was being treated at
Crossroads, video cassettes obtained by the police from one of respondent's clients
 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

in April 2000 showed him using crack cocaine with the client. In August 2000, in
response to a letter of inquiry from relator, respondent admitted that he had a
substance abuse problem. He also admitted this at a deposition in October 2000.
As a result, respondent entered into a treatment contract with Crossroads in
November 2000. However, respondent met the terms of the contract only
sporadically. In June 2001, he entered into a contract with OLAP, but, as of
October 2001 (the month the stipulation was signed), he had not fulfilled the
conditions requiring that he participate in a "12 Step Self Help Program" or
participate in continuing outpatient therapy. As a result, the panel concluded that
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct
involving moral turpitude) and 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct
adversely reflecting on the lawyer's fitness to practice law).
 {¶ 3} Again, based on stipulations, the panel found that in 1997, Martha V.
McConnaughy agreed to pay respondent $1,500 if he would represent her in a
divorce case. After the divorce was granted, respondent did not draft or file a
Qualified Domestic Relations Order as ordered by the court because McConnaughy
had paid only $300 of the agreed fee. Respondent, however, did not notify
McConnaughy or the court that he was not proceeding further in the case. The
panel concluded that this inaction by respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer
shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
 {¶ 4} In addition, the panel found that in January 2000, respondent agreed
to represent Fannie Snyder, who was seeking custody of her sixteen-year-old
granddaughter. After receiving a retainer of $450, respondent took no action in the
case. Snyder terminated the representation and asked for a refund of the retainer.
Although respondent promised to comply, he failed to send the refund or an
accounting until after Snyder filed a grievance with relator and relator had sent two
letters of inquiry to respondent. Finally, in November 2000, respondent sent Snyder
a refund of only $350 but did not provide a billing statement or any accounting for

 2
 January Term, 2002

the $100 he retained. The panel concluded that respondent's inaction violated DR
1-102(A)(5), 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail to carry out a contract of professional
employment), and 7-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not prejudice or damage his client).
 {¶ 5} The panel further found that after Leslie Allen hired respondent in
August 1999 and paid him $725 to file a bankruptcy for her, respondent took no
action although he repeatedly assured her that her case was progressing.
Respondent did not return Allen's money until she sued him in small claims court.
The panel concluded that respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer
shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3).
 {¶ 6} The panel also found that in May 1999, respondent agreed to represent
Mary Jo Gossett in the purchase of a home. Respondent then failed to pay the tax
bill, which Gossett forwarded to him, although the seller had given respondent
$339.32 to pay the taxes on the home. Despite Gossett's repeated requests that
respondent make the payment, the taxes became delinquent, and continued to be
unpaid despite relator's November 2000 letter of inquiry to respondent about the
matter to which respondent never replied. The panel concluded that this additional
inaction violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-
101(A)(3), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or
testify in an investigation or hearing).
 {¶ 7} Finally, the panel found that on several occasions in 1999 and 2000,
respondent wrote personal checks to himself on his client trust account and that in
May 2000, respondent wrote three checks to the United States Bankruptcy Court
that were returned for insufficient funds. The bankruptcy judge filed a grievance
against respondent, but it appears that respondent did not reply to relator's letter of
inquiry regarding the matter. In August 2000, the bankruptcy judge held a hearing
on the matter, and respondent then made the appropriate payments on the checks.

 3
 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

The panel concluded that respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-
102(A)(6), and 9-102(A) (a lawyer shall not commingle funds of a client with
personal funds).
 {¶ 8} The parties agreed upon a sanction of indefinite suspension from the
practice of law, and the panel made that recommendation. The board adopted the
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
 {¶ 9} Upon review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from
the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
 Judgment accordingly.
 MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
 __________________
 Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Claudia S. Herrington,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
 Terry Easterwood, pro se.
 __________________

 4