Opinion · Ohlaw Ohio

STARK CTY. BAR ASSN. v. RAMSAYER, 50 Ohio St.3d 129 (1990)

STARK COUNTY BAR Ass’n v. RAMSAYER., 552 N.E.2d 932 (Ohio 1990)

Type
Opinion
Court
Ohio
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Date
1990-04-11
Topic
general

STARK CTY. BAR ASSN. v. RAMSAYER, 50 Ohio St.3d 129 (1990) 552 N.E.2d 932 STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. RAMSAYER. No. 89-2170Supreme Court of Ohio.Submitted February 13, 1990 — Decided April 11, 1990.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STARK CTY. BAR ASSN. v. RAMSAYER, 50 Ohio St.3d 129 (1990). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STARK CTY. BAR ASSN. v. RAMSAYER,50 Ohio St.3d 129(1990)
552 N.E.2d 932
STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. RAMSAYER.
No. 89-2170
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted February 13, 1990 —
Decided April 11, 1990.
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension — Convincingclient to invest her settlement money in a corporation in whichthe attorney was the sole shareholder and which eventuallyfolded — Filing an assault and battery action after letting thestatute of limitations run.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 88-52.

In a complaint filed on October 27, 1988, relator, Stark County Bar Association, charged that respondent, Donald R. Ramsayer, had violated,inter alia, DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), 5-104(A) (entering into a business transaction with a client when the attorney's and client's interests differ), and 7-101 (A)(3) (causing a client prejudice or damage). The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court on December 1, 1989. Respondent stipulated to the misconduct charged in the complaint and to the facts underlying it at the hearing. He also stipulated to having violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), even though the violation was not charged in the complaint.

According to the stipulations, respondent negotiated a $2,000 settlement for Sandra Kelley in her claim for child support arrearages. When Kelley received the settlement check on June 11, 1984, respondent suggested that she could "double her money" by investing the money with him. Thereafter, Kelley gave respondent $5,000, but with the understanding that she would be repaid within one year.

Respondent invested Kelley's money in Ram-Engineering Corporation, a venture in which respondent was the sole shareholder. Several years later, Ram-Engineering folded, and Kelley's money was lost. In April 1988, Kelley sued respondent and recovered the $5,000.

The stipulations also indicate that in November 1982, respondent agreed to file an assault and battery action for Pamela Head. Respondent eventually filed the action, but not until after the statute of limitations had run. Head's claim was subsequently dismissed for this reason.

Based on the foregoing, the panel found violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), 5-104(A), 7-101(A)(3), and 6-101(A)(3). Before making its recommendation, the panel heard testimony from respondent that he was a recovering alcoholic who had relapsed during the events at issue, and that he is now, through treatment, in recovery again. Further, some favorable reports on respondent's character and professional competence were received at the hearing. The panel recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded for his actions. The board adopted the panel's findings and its recommendation.
J. Fred StergiosandChristopher P. DeLaCruz, for relator.John N. Mackey, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we agree that respondent committed the misconductPage 130cited by the board. However, we find this misconduct deserving of a more severe sanction than the board recommended. Accordingly, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. Costs taxed to respondent.Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.

WRIGHT, J., not participating.