1998 OHIO 449 - Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at

81 Ohio St.3d 79

.]




                   OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. JOHNSON.
             [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnson,

1998-Ohio-449

.]
Attorneys     at   law—Misconduct—One-year             suspension—Conduct         involving
        dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Failing to carry out
        contract of employment—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter.
   (No. 97-1754—Submitted October 20, 1997—Decided February 18, 1998.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-35.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} On April 14, 1997, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the
Supreme Court, filed a complaint alleging that after respondent, Inza E. Johnson of
Wilmington, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0040642,

 undertook to represent Lisa
Franco in a wrongful termination and discrimination claim against Franco’s former
employer, respondent failed to file Franco’s complaint as promised. Nevertheless,
alleged relator, respondent continually assured Franco that the complaint had been
filed. Later, respondent misrepresented to Franco that the defendant was attempting
to file a late answer.      Franco discovered respondent’s deception and filed a
grievance with relator. Relator charged that respondent’s false statements and her
failure to act violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract of employment),
and 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter).
        {¶ 2} When respondent did not answer the complaint, relator filed a motion
for default and attached to it an affidavit by Franco and a letter of response to
Franco’s grievance filed by respondent. The matter was submitted to a panel of the
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
(“board”).
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




       {¶ 3} The panel found the facts as alleged, concluded that respondent had
violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 7-101(A)(2), and 6-101(A)(3), and recommended that
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year. The board adopted
the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
                               __________________
       Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, Alvin E. Mathews, Jr., and
Stacy M. Solochek, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
                               __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 4} Having reviewed the record, we concur in the board’s findings,
conclusions, and recommendation. As we said in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Clark
(1996),

76 Ohio St.3d 363, 365

667 N.E.2d 1182, 1183

, “A lawyer is not required
to serve every client who appears at his door, but once having agreed to represent
a client, a lawyer must do so to the best of his ability.” Earlier we said in
Disciplinary Counsel v. Greene (1995),

74 Ohio St.3d 13, 16

655 N.E.2d 1299

,
1301 that this court “cannot permit attorneys who lie either to their clients or to the
court to continue practicing without interruption.” Therefore, we hereby suspend
respondent from the practice of law for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.
                                                              Judgment accordingly.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                               __________________




                                          2