 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. McCord6/19/2002
Attorneys at law - Misconduct - Six-month suspension with entire sanction stayed on condition that attorney make full restitution to client - Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice - Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law - Failing to promptly deliver funds or property to which the client is entitled.
Submitted March 26, 2002
. In October 1998, Geraldine Flenoury paid $1,500 to respondent, Michael McCord of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0020304, and turned over some files to him for review. Flenoury and respondent had no written fee agreement and the facts about the engagement are disputed. Flenoury thought that respondent was going to sue her previous workers' compensation lawyer for malpractice. Respondent testified that he told Flenoury that the $1,500 was an "investigation fee" to look into the case.
. Flenoury said that after she paid respondent $1,500, she was unable to contact him until December 14, 1998, when he called and told her that she had no viable cause of action. Flenoury said that at that time she asked that the $1,500 be returned. On December 20, 1998, respondent wrote a detailed letter to Flenoury confirming his opinion of December 14, 1998, that she had no cause of action.
. Seeking a return of her money, Flenoury filed a fee arbitration request with the Columbus Bar Association in February 1999. At the hearing, respondent estimated that he had expended twelve hours of time examining Flenoury's case, but he had not itemized his time except for notes he kept on a notepad. The arbitrator found that the kind of work for which respondent was engaged is usually handled on a contingent-fee basis, that a contingent-fee contract must be in writing, that there was no written contract between Flenoury and respondent, and that respondent was not entitled to any fee. Respondent did not appeal the arbitration award. When respondent had not paid the award by August 2, 1999, the chairman of the arbitration committee contacted respondent. Respondent said that he would not voluntarily pay the award and that Flenoury would have to sue him for it.
. In September 1999, Flenoury sued respondent in the Warren County Municipal Court. Respondent did not appear, and in October 1999 the court awarded Flenoury a default judgment in the sum of $1,500 plus interest and costs. Respondent did not pay the judgment. Flenoury then filed a grievance with the Columbus Bar Association, which in April 2000, informed her that it would dismiss her grievance because it involved a collection problem and not a disciplinary matter. In February 2001, Flenoury filed the Warren court judgment in the Franklin County Municipal Court.
. Flenoury then filed a grievance with relator, Disciplinary Counsel. On June 25, 2001, relator filed an amended complaint charging that respondent's failure to refund the unused portion of the fee paid to him by Flenoury violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent answered, and the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court.
. Based on stipulations and evidence received at a hearing, the panel found the facts as stated above. It also found that although respondent admitted that he was bound by the arbitration process, he did not refund the $1,500 because the arbitrator did not give him any compensation for the effort he put into Flenoury's case. Respondent said that to return the money would be to admit that he did nothing in the case.
. The panel concluded that respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudi
Page 1 2 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|