Disciplinary Counsel v. Saumer

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                   OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SAUMER.
            [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Saumer, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Engaging in conduct
        prejudicial to the administration of justice—Engaging in conduct
        adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—Neglect of an entrusted
        legal matter—Failing to carry out contract for professional employment—
        Failing to promptly deliver to client funds or property to which the client
        is entitled—Neglecting or refusing to assist or testify in a disciplinary
        investigation or hearing.
   (No. 01-1578—Submitted October 16, 2001—Decided February 20, 2002.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-95.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} On August 25, 1999, we indefinitely suspended respondent, James
Clark Saumer, now residing in North Olmsted, Ohio, Attorney 

 from the practice of law for neglecting and abandoning cases in probate
court. Disciplinary Counsel v. Saumer (1999), 

, 

.
On December 4, 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint
charging that respondent, by neglecting three other matters, again violated the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Respondent failed to answer, and relator’s motion
for default was referred to Master Commissioner Harry W. White.
        {¶ 2} Based upon the allegations of the complaint and evidence submitted
by relator, the master commissioner found that after respondent filed a personal
injury suit for Luann Dobson in September 1998, he failed to obtain service, and
the case was dismissed in April 1999. Nevertheless, respondent informed Dobson
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




that the case had been filed and would probably settle. Respondent did not reply to
the inquiries of successor counsel after Dobson terminated her relationship with
respondent in December 1999.
       {¶ 3} The master commissioner also found that respondent neglected his
duty with respect to the estate of his mother, Vivian L. Saumer, by failing to transfer
certain real estate, failing to file a proper inventory, and failing to file a final
account. As a result, respondent’s sister was removed as the fiduciary.
       {¶ 4} Similarly, respondent was cited by the probate court in May 1997 for
failure to file an account in the estate of Kay Weber. As a result, the Cuyahoga
County Probate Court removed the co-executors, and the Ohio Department of
Taxation assessed a penalty against the estate for a nineteen-month delay in filing
the estate tax return. The penalty was abated by the successor administrator.
       {¶ 5} Finally, the master commissioner found that respondent failed to
cooperate in the investigation of his conduct and failed to comply with the order of
suspension we issued in 1999.
       {¶ 6} The master commissioner concluded that respondent’s failures to act
violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct
adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 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 for professional employment), 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall
promptly deliver to the client funds or property to which the client is entitled), and
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in a
disciplinary investigation or hearing). Based on respondent’s prior neglect and
these similar matters of neglect, the master commissioner recommended that
respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. The board adopted the
findings and conclusions of the master commissioner but not his recommendation.




                                          2
                                January Term, 2002




The board concluded that respondent’s conduct did not warrant a disbarment and
recommended an indefinite suspension instead.
       {¶ 7} We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice
of law in Ohio for an indefinite period. Costs are taxed to respondent.
                                                            Judgment accordingly.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
       COOK, J., dissents.
                               __________________
       COOK, J., dissenting.
       {¶ 8} Because I would adopt the sanction recommended by the master
commissioner, I respectfully dissent. I would disbar respondent.
                               __________________
       Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Gloria J. Sigman,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
                               __________________




                                         3