Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Keeler

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

1 Cuyahoga County Bar Association v. Keeler. 2 [Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Keeler (1996), ________Ohio 3 St.3d ________.] 4 Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Neglect of an 5 entrusted legal matter -- Failure to promptly return client funds or 6 property -- Violation of a Disciplinary Rule -- Conduct adversely 7 reflecting on fitness to practice law -- Failure to cooperate in 8 disciplinary investigation -- Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 9 deceit, or misrepresentation -- Failure to carry out contract of 10 employment -- Accepting employment not competent to handle -- 11 Failure to maintain records of client funds -- Handling a legal matter 12 without adequate preparation -- Practicing law in violation of 13 professional regulations. 14 (No. 96-922--Submitted June 25, 1996--Decided August 28, 1996.) 15 On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 16 and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-15. 17 In an amended complaint filed on September 27, 1995, relator, 18 Cuyahoga County Bar Association, charged respondent, Robert C. Keeler, 1 of Westlake, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0029017, with multiple 2 disciplinary violations. 3 alleged in the complaint, denied others, and added explanations. In his answer, respondent admitted some facts 4 On February 28, 1996, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 5 Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court ( board ) held a hearing on 6 the matter. 7 following misconduct and violations by respondent. 8 The complaint, answer, and stipulations established the Claim I - - Icke 9 Robert H. Icke, on behalf of his company, BGI Enterprises Inc. 10 retained respondent in connection with a sales tax assessment. After the 11 Board of Tax Appeals upheld the assessment, respondent appealed to the 12 court of appeals. However, respondent filed the appeal late, thus violating 13 DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal matter). Respondent also 14 retained funds belonging to BGI and Icke. After receiving a demand for 15 repayment, respondent issued a check that was returned for insufficient 16 funds, thereby violating DR 9-102(B)(4) (failure to promptly return client 17 funds or property). Respondent was unable to produce all funds demanded 18 of him to satisfy the unpaid sales taxes, and thereby violated DR 12 1 102(A)(1) (violation of Disciplinary Rule) and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct 2 adversely reflecting fitness to practice law). Respondent never returned 3 Icke s will and other records, and thereby violated DR 9-102(B)(4). Finally, 4 respondent did not turn over his file and records of this matter to bar 5 investigators upon request, and thereby violated Gov. Bar. R. V(4)(G) 6 (failure to cooperate with investigation). 7 Claim II - - Vesely 8 Respondent was retained by Robert Vesely to have a buried TV cable 9 moved from Vesely s property. Respondent advised Vesely that he had 10 filed a lawsuit against the cable company and was waiting for a trial date. 11 In fact, respondent never filed such a suit. Respondent also repeatedly 12 failed to return Vesely s phone calls. Whenever he did return the calls, he 13 was not honest with Vesely about the status of the lawsuit. Respondent 14 admitted that these acts violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving 15 dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 16 and 7-101(A)(2)(failure to carry out contract of employment). Further, 17 respondent did not turn over his file and records of this matter to the bar 18 investigator upon request, and thereby violated Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G). 3 1 Claim III - - Lovejoy and McConnell 2 Respondent was retained by Louise McConnell to handle the estate of 3 Lorraine Lovejoy. However, respondent never opened an estate for Lovejoy 4 in the probate court although he told McConnell that he had done so. 5 Respondent failed to timely file an Ohio estate tax return for the Lovejoy 6 estate, which caused the estate to pay interest and penalties. Respondent 7 also received $5,600 from McConnell which he asked her to advance on 8 behalf of the Lovejoy estate to pay estate debts, taxes, and attorney fees he 9 earned while handling the estate. In fact, respondent provided no services 10 for the estate. When a demand for return of the $5,600 was made to him, 11 respondent issued a check, although he knew the check was not backed by 12 sufficient funds. Respondent further admitted that as of the hearing date, he 13 had not repaid the $5,600. 14 A probate court found that respondent had concealed assets of the 15 estate of $5,600 and ordered him to pay the estate $5,600, a penalty of ten 16 percent ($560), and costs by March 29, 1993. 17 objections and appeal of the order were rejected, respondent had still not, as 18 of February 28, 1996, repaid the estate. 4 Although respondent s 1 Respondent s actions with respect to McConnell and the Lovejoy 2 estate violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(1) (accepting employment when 3 not competent to handle), 6-101(A)(3), 9-102(B)(4) and 7-101(A)(2). 4 Finally, respondent did not turn over his file and records of this matter to the 5 bar investigator upon request and thereby violated Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G). 6 Claim IV - - Adam 7 Respondent was retained to represent Joseph Adam in a paternity and 8 child support matter. Respondent accepted fees but thereafter failed to 9 perfect an appeal by arranging for the entry of a final appealable order. By 10 not doing so, respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2). 11 Respondent then failed to return Adam s funds or other properties in 12 violation of DR 9-102(B)(4). Respondent failed to turn over his file and 13 records of this matter to a bar investigator upon request and thereby violated 14 Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G). 15 Claim V - - Wolf 16 Respondent was retained by John A. Wolf to probate the estates of 17 Wolf s parents. Respondent admits that proceeds from the sale of real estate 18 were forwarded to him, but that he was unable to account for the proceeds, 5 1 in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102 (A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 9- 2 102(B)(3) (failure to maintain records of client funds), and 9-102(B)(4). 3 Further, respondent failed to properly attend to the transfer and payment of 4 taxes to protect the Wolf s Pennsylvania real estate, and thereby violated 5 DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), 9-102(B)(3) and 6 9-102(B)(4). Further, respondent did not turn over his file and records of 7 this matter to the bar investigator upon request, and thereby violated Gov. 8 Bar. R. V(4)(G). 9 Claim VI - - Cole 10 Respondent was retained to incorporate Dale Cole Enterprises, Inc. 11 but failed to keep its corporate records current, resulting in cancellation of 12 the certificate of incoporation. By his actions, respondent violated DR 6- 13 101(A)(1), 14 preparation), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 1-102(A)(4). 15 failed to file and record leases negotiated for the oil rights on certain 16 property, resulting in the loss of his client s rights thereto, and thereby 17 violating DR 6-101(A)(1), 6-101(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), and 7- 18 101(A)(2). 6-101(A)(2)(handling a legal matter without adequate Respondent Respondent failed to maintain his client s documents and 6 1 thereby violated DR 9-102(B)(3). Respondent failed to file certain tax 2 documentation and thereby violated DR 6-101(A)(1), 6-101(A)(2), 6- 3 101(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 7-101(A)(2), and 9-102(B)(3). Respondent failed 4 to file for a windfall profit tax refund, although he had assured Cole he had 5 done so; this failure violated DR 6-101(A)(1), 6-101(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3), 7- 6 101(A)(2), and 1-102(A)(4). Contrary to his assurances to Cole that he had 7 done so, respondent also failed to file a lawsuit based upon a promissory 8 note, and thereby violated DR 6-101(A)(1), 6-101(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3), 9- 9 102(B)(3), and 1-102(A)(4). Further, respondent issued at least three 10 checks to Cole that were returned for insufficient funds and thereby violated 11 DR 1-102(A)(4). Finally, respondent did not turn over his file and records 12 on these matters to the bar investigator upon request, and thereby violated 13 Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G). 14 Claim VII - - Attorney Registration 15 Respondent s registration with the Supreme Court as an attorney 16 lapsed on September 1, 1991, but respondent continued to practice law and 17 thereby violated DR 3-101(B) (practicing in violation of professional 7 1 regulations). Respondent did not turn over records of this matter upon 2 request and thereby violated Gov. Bar R. V(4)(G). 3 In mitigation, respondent testified that he recognized that he was an 4 alcoholic and contacted the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program in the fall of 5 1992. He was then admitted to a thirty-day hospital inpatient treatment 6 program and later resided at a halfway house. He testified that he has 7 abstained completely from alcohol since July 1994, and regularly attends 8 Alcoholic Anonymous meetings. 9 Respondent practiced law from 1973 until late 1994 and took part in 10 various community activities. Prior to entering the practice of law, 11 respondent served in the United States Marine Corps from 1961 through 12 1967 and was discharged as a captain. He then served in the reserves, 13 retiring from the Marine Corps Reserves as a lieutenant colonel in 1987. 14 Respondent has not practiced law since late 1994 and now works as a 15 hotel maintenance man and van driver. He lives in a rooming house, earns 16 approximately $6 an hour, and attends graduate school part time. He reports 17 that as a result of his alcoholism, he now owes a quarter of a million dollars, 8 1 but he does not plan to declare bankruptcy. He claims he would like to 2 return to the practice of law some day. 3 The panel found that respondent presented a picture of a very 4 pathetic individual whose drinking caused him to lose his family and his 5 practice. **** He neglected his professional responsibilities[,]*** himself, 6 *** his family, [and] *** his clients. 7 culpability and the injury he caused *** [and] has embarked on a positive 8 program to regain his status as a productive citizen. However, he readily admits his 9 Relator recommended an indefinite suspension, and respondent asked 10 that he be given another opportunity to practice law in the future. The panel 11 recommended an indefinite suspension. The board adopted the panel s 12 findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. 13 _______________________________ 14 15 16 17 Laurence A. Turbow, Martha H. Krebs and Michael M. Courtney, for relator. J. Michael Drain, for respondent. _______________________________ 9 1 Per Curiam. Having reviewed the record, we concur in the board s 2 findings, conclusions and recommendation. 3 serious disciplinary violations require, at a bare minimum, an indefinite 4 suspension from the practice of law in Ohio. In fact, his conduct could 5 ordinarily be expected to result in disbarment. 6 Counsel v. Sprague (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 624, 660 N.E.2d 1168; 7 Disciplinary Counsel v. Rubright (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 34, 630 N.E.2d 335. 8 However, we have given appropriate mitigating weight to 9 respondent s sincere efforts to overcome his alcoholism. See Cincinnati 10 Bar Assn. v. Slattery (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 209, 658 N.E.2d 254; 11 Disciplinary Counsel v. McElrath (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 131, 642 N.E.2d 12 370. Accordingly, we hereby indefinitely suspend respondent from the 13 practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent. 14 15 16 Respondent s repeated and See, e.g., Disciplinary Judgment accordingly. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., concur. 17 10

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.