 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Toledo Bar Association v. Vild11/2/2005
Submitted June 28, 2005
{ } Respondent, Jeffrey Thomas Vild, of Oregon, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0029535, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1985. In 1998, we publicly reprimanded respondent for violating DR 6-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from accepting a case that the lawyer is not competent to handle) and 6-101(A)(3) (barring a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter). Toledo Bar Assn. v. Vild (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 179, 702 N.E.2d 865.
{ } On May 27, 2004, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed an amended complaint charging respondent with 12 counts of professional misconduct. Respondent was served with a copy of the complaint but did not answer, and relator moved for default under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline granted the motion, making findings of misconduct and a recommendation, all of which the board adopted.
Misconduct
{ } Relator failed to offer any evidence to support counts one, two, three, four, eight, and ten of the amended complaint. We therefore dismiss the allegations in those counts under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1)(b), which requires " worn or certified documentary prima facie evidence" in support of a motion for default.
{ } The allegations in the remaining counts are discussed below.
Count Five
{ } Bruce Smith hired respondent to represent him in a driving-under-the-influence ("DUI") case and paid respondent $400. When Smith was sentenced, he gave respondent his wallet for safekeeping. After his release from custody, Smith tried to contact respondent to recover the wallet and his case file but was unable to do so. After the Oregon Police Department told respondent that Smith would file a theft report if the wallet was not returned, respondent taped the wallet to his office door so that Smith could pick it up. Respondent never turned over the case file.
{ } The board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney's fitness to practice law) and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring prompt payment of the client's funds or the return of the client's property in the lawyer's possession). (The board's report mistakenly cited DR 1-102(A)(5) for count five, but the context clearly indicates that the board meant DR 1-102(A)(6)).
Count Six
{ } Tammy Chandler hired respondent in December 2000 to file a bankruptcy petition on her behalf. Respondent did not file the petition for her until January 2003. In the meantime, Chandler received many calls from creditors.
{ } In addition, Chandler hired respondent in March 2002 to file a divorce complaint on her behalf. Respondent never did so. Chandler was unable to contact respondent despite trying over 100 times.
{ } Relator asked respondent in December 2002 to reply to Chandler's grievance against him. Despite a second request, respondent did not reply in writing until July 2003 and did not address the divorce issue in his response. He did not respond to relator's additional inquiries about the matter.
{ } The board found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring attorneys to cooperate with and assist in any disciplinary investigation).
Count Seven
{ } Relator asked respondent in December 2002 to reply to a grievance filed by Judith Show. Despite a second request, respondent did not reply in writing until July 2003.
{ } The board found that respondent had thereby violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
Count Nine
{ } After her husband's death in November
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|