Toledo Bar Assn. v. Christensen
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 Toledo Bar Association v. Christensen. 2 [Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Christensen (1996), ____Ohio St. 3d _____.] 3 Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Engaging 4 in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law -- 5 Failure to comply with attorney registration requirements -- 6 Failure to comply with sanctions imposed for not meeting 7 continuing 8 cooperate with grievance investigation. 9 (No. 96-1427-- Submitted September 10, 1996 -- Decided November 10 11 12 13 legal education requirements -- Failure to 6, 1996.) On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-66. On September 20, 1994, the Toledo Bar Association ( relator ) filed 14 a complaint charging David C. Christensen of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 15 Registration No. 0002576 ( respondent ), in one count with violating DR 3- 16 101(B)(engaging in the unauthorized practice of law), and in a second count 17 with violating Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G), DR 1-102(A)(1) and 1-102(A)(6) 18 (failing to cooperate with a grievance investigation). 19 20 Respondent failed to answer the complaint, and relator moved for a default judgment. Based on the complaint and affidavits attached to a 1 supplemental motion for default judgment, a panel of the Board of 2 Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 3 ( board ) found that respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio 4 in 1955 but is not currently registered to practice law in Ohio and has not 5 been in good standing since September 1, 1991. In April 1993 the Supreme 6 Court sanctioned respondent for failure to comply with the continuing legal 7 education requirements for the 1990-1991 reporting period and imposed a 8 sanction fee which he has not paid. After September 1, 1991 and until 9 March 1993, respondent represented Gretchen A. Good in various legal 10 matters including estate and tax representation, but, according to the panel, 11 never advised Good that he was not registered to practice law in Ohio. 12 After Good filed a grievance, relator began an investigation of Good s 13 allegations. Although relator advised respondent by mail of the 14 investigation and asked for his cooperation, respondent failed to 15 communicate or cooperate with relator. 16 In its decision, the panel found that the respondent had been served 17 with the complaint; that the facts alleged in the complaint were true; and 18 that respondent not only had failed to cooperate with relator, but had failed 1 to respond to the complaint or appear at the hearing scheduled thereon. The 2 panel concluded that respondent had violated DR 3-101(B) (by engaging in 3 the unauthorized practice of law) and, further, that respondent had violated 4 Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G), DR 1-102(A)(1) and 1-102(A)(6) (because of his 5 failure to cooperate in the relator s investigation). The panel recommended 6 that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. 7 The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 8 9 10 11 recommendation of the panel. __________________________ Deborah K. Rump and Harold M. Steinberg, for relator. __________________________ 12 Per Curiam. We adopt the findings of fact of the board. Further, we 13 conclude that respondent has engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on 14 his fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) by (1) undertaking 15 the representation of Good when he had failed to comply with the 16 registration requirements of Gov. Bar R. VI, (2) failing to comply with the 17 sanctions imposed for not meeting the continuing legal education 18 requirements of Gov. Bar R. X, and (3) failing to cooperate with the 1 grievance investigation as required by Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G). Therefore, 2 respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. 3 Costs taxed to respondent. 4 5 6 Judgment accordingly. MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and STRATTON, JJ., concur. 7 COOK, J., dissents. 8 DOUGLAS, J., not participating. 9 COOK, J., dissenting. Respondent s conduct, in the aggregate, displays a 10 flagrant disregard of this court s rules, orders, and grievance procedures, and 11 warrants permanent disbarment from the practice of law. 12
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
