Opinion
No. 92-419
Submitted April 15, 1992 —
Decided September 2, 1992.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 91-09.
In a complaint filed on April 18, 1991, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, charged in Counts I and II that respondent, Thomas Paul McMahon, Attorney Registration No. 0023244, had violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him), 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client), (A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract of employment) and (A)(3) (prejudicing or damaging his client during the course of the professional relationship). Count III involved respondent's failure to register as an attorney pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VI.
The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court on October 25, 1991.
Respondent was retained by Linda Jean Kondrat and other members of her family to pursue a wrongful death action against the city of Cleveland due to the killing of her brother by a Cleveland police officer. Respondent filed a lawsuit in federal court on July 12, 1988, but did nothing further, resulting in the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice on June 28, 1989.
Despite Kondrat's many efforts to contact respondent concerning the status of the case, there were few times where the attempts were successful. Each time contact was made, respondent assured her that the case was going forward properly. Respondent even told her that depositions had been taken when none had been taken. Kondrat and other family members became aware of the dismissal only after they contacted another attorney to look into the matter.
The parties entered into a stipulation in which respondent admitted to the violations with which he was charged in Counts I and II, except for DR 7-101(A)(1).
Respondent testified that due to his recent separation and dissolution of his marriage he went through a period of depression which affected his personal life as well as his practice of law. Respondent has had no drug or alcohol problems and this is the first time he has been the subject of a disciplinary action.
The panel dismissed Counts I and II alleging violations of DR 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3). Count III was also dismissed because of respondent's quick response after being notified of his failure to register. The panel concluded that respondent had violated the remaining Disciplinary Rules contained in both Counts I and II: DR 1-102(A)(6) and 6-101(A)(3). Relator and respondent agreed that a public reprimand should be imposed.
The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the panel.
J. Warren Bettis, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, for relator.
Thomas Paul McMahon, pro se.
We agree that respondent violated the Disciplinary Rules, as found by the board. We also concur with the board's recommendation. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.