[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at
81 Ohio St.3d 80.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. PHILLIPS.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Phillips, 1998-Ohio-520.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Disbarment—Conduct involving moral
turpitude—Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation—Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice—
Conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law—Neglect of an
entrusted legal matter—Refusing to cooperate in disciplinary
investigation—Practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the
regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction—Failing to deliver to
client funds or property client is entitled to receive—Failing to preserve
identity of client funds.
(No. 97-1810—Submitted October 7, 1997—Decided February 18, 1998.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-44.
__________________
{¶ 1} On December 7, 1994, we suspended respondent, Thomas Ewing
Phillips of Chillicothe, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0008582, from the practice
of law for one year, with that one year stayed, and we placed respondent on
probation for two years. Among the conditions we imposed were that respondent
enter into a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program and abide by its
terms for the following two years, and that no disciplinary complaints be certified
to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
(“board”) by a probable cause panel within those two years. Disciplinary Counsel
v. Phillips (1994),
71 Ohio St.3d 98,
642 N.E.2d 344.
{¶ 2} On October 10, 1996, based upon a petition for revocation of
probation by relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, we revoked the probation of
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
respondent and imposed the original one-year suspension pending issuance of a
final order. In Disciplinary Counsel v. Phillips (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 311,
677
N.E.2d 1187, we found that respondent had pled guilty to the misdemeanor of
having an open container of beer or intoxicating liquor in a motor vehicle and had
not, by April 1996, begun participation in the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program.
We therefore revoked respondent’s two-year probation and reinstated the order of
December 7, 1994 suspending respondent for one year with no probation.
{¶ 3} On March 14, 1997, relator filed an amended nine-count complaint
charging that respondent had violated several Disciplinary Rules. In count one,
relator alleged that on May 16, 1996, a bill of information was filed charging
respondent with four counts of forgery in the course of his representation of Gary
Hatfield, executor of the estates of Arthur Siders and Samuel Siders. After
respondent waived time for arraignment and speedy trial, his case was placed on an
inactive list, and he was accepted into a pretrial diversion program. Relator alleged
that respondent’s conduct had violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (conduct involving moral
turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice), 1-102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely reflects upon the fitness to practice
law), and 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal matter).
{¶ 4} In count two of the complaint, relator alleged that respondent failed
to reply to its inquiries regarding a grievance filed by Loretta Parrott in December
1995, and that as a result respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (refusing to
cooperate in a disciplinary investigation).
{¶ 5} In count three of the complaint, relator alleged that from November
1990 though March 1994 while representing William Targee, executor of the estate
of Thelma Daken, respondent was repeatedly late in filing inventory and
accountings. As a result, Targee was twice cited by the probate court for contempt
and twice received warnings from the court, but respondent’s later filings of the
2
January Term, 1998
appropriate documents resolved the court’s complaints. Relator asserted that
respondent’s failure to act promptly in representing Targee was a violation of DR
6-101(A)(3).
{¶ 6} Count four of relator’s complaint alleged that respondent was engaged
by Deborah McMullen to file a bankruptcy action in September 1996. After
McMullen paid a retainer to respondent, she was unable to contact him, and relator
was unable to obtain any answer from respondent in its attempt to investigate
McMullen’s grievance. Relator alleged that respondent’s failure to act in the
McMullen matter violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and 6-101(A)(3), and Gov.Bar R.
V(4)(G).
{¶ 7} Relator alleged in count five that on or about December 1992, Anna
Keaton hired respondent to probate the estate of Pascaline Watts. After the estate
was opened, Keaton was unable to contact respondent or obtain papers relating to
the estate that are still in respondent’s possession. Keaton was cited for contempt
by the probate court for failure to file an inventory. Relator alleged that
respondent’s failure to act had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6) and 6-101(A)(3).
{¶ 8} The allegations in count six of the complaint were that on October 17,
1996, respondent, with knowledge of the revocation of his probation and
reinstatement of his suspension, received a fee from and represented Dean Bocook
in municipal court in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6) and 3-101(B) (practicing
law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the profession in that
jurisdiction).
{¶ 9} In count seven, relator alleged that when representing Darrell Steve
Hatfield in a criminal case, respondent forged Darrell’s signature to an affidavit of
indigency, and when representing Darrell and Melissa Hatfield in a civil suit forged
Darrell’s name to a request for hearing. Relator alleged that respondent’s conduct
violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5), and (6).
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 10} In count eight, relator alleged that respondent, in representing
Melvin Jones as fiduciary in the estate of Romance Lee Thomas, filed an inventory
late, and then failed to file an accounting. Jones was unable to contact respondent
to obtain the estate records and has been cited in contempt by the probate court. In
the same count, relator alleged that after being hired by Linda Woodfork to
represent her in probating the estate of Danny Woodfork, respondent failed to file
an accounting or keep in contact with Woodfork and, as a result, Woodfork was
cited for contempt by the probate court. In that count, relator also alleged that
respondent failed to file an accounting or return the files of the Arthur Campbell
estate to the fiduciary after being hired to probate that estate. Also in the same
count, relator alleged that after being hired to probate the estate of Lillian Gougeon,
respondent failed to file an accounting and failed to respond to the fiduciary’s
attempts to contact him. All these actions, alleged relator, violated DR 1-102(A)(5)
and (6), 6-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to deliver to a client funds or
property the client is entitled to receive).
{¶ 11} Relator alleged in count nine of the complaint that from January
1991 through October 1996, respondent used the same bank account both as his
client trust account and as a personal checking account. As a result, relator alleged
that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and 9-102(A) (failing to preserve the
identity of client funds).
{¶ 12} Respondent failed to answer or plead to the amended complaint and
relator filed a motion for default. A panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) found that respondent
had received adequate notice and the opportunity to plead or respond. It then found
the facts as alleged in the amended complaint and concluded that respondent had
violated the Disciplinary Rules and Rules for the Government of the Bar as cited
by relator. The panel recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice
4
January Term, 1998
of law in Ohio. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation
of the panel.
__________________
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 13} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
board. Respondent is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs
taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
5
