Disciplinary Counsel v. Treneff

104 Ohio St. 3d 336 (Ohio 2004) · Supreme Court of Ohio · December 15, 2004

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court indefinitely suspended Randall Charles Treneff from practicing law for neglecting a criminal-defense matter, failing to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation, and failing to register and update his address. The court adopted the findings of misconduct and recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline and taxed costs to Treneff.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Moyer, C.J.; Resnick, J.; F.E. Sweeney, J.; Pfeifer, J.; Lundberg Stratton, J.; O'Connor, J.; O'Donnell, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
December 15, 2004
Procedural posture
Attorney-discipline proceeding in which Disciplinary Counsel charged respondent with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Ohio disciplinary rules. After respondent failed to answer, a master commissioner granted relator's motion for default, and the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline adopted the findings and recommended an indefinite suspension. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed and adopted the findings and sanction.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court of Ohio independently reviewed the disciplinary findings and sanction recommendation and agreed with the board's determinations.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Disciplinary Counsel v. Randall Charles Treneff
Disposition
other

Topics

administrative lawagency adjudicationjudicial review of agency action

Practice areas

legal ethicsattorney disciplineprofessional responsibility

Questions Presented

  1. Whether respondent violated the specified disciplinary rules through neglect of a client's criminal matter, failure to pursue the client's objectives and perform the employment contract, and conduct prejudicial to the client.
  2. Whether respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.
  3. Whether respondent violated Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A) and VI(1)(D) by failing to file a certificate of registration, pay the registration fee, and provide current office and residence addresses.
  4. What sanction was appropriate for the established misconduct.

Holdings

  1. Respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6), DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 7-101(A)(1), DR 7-101(A)(2), and DR 7-101(A)(3) by neglecting the client's case, failing to pursue the client's lawful objectives, failing to carry out the professional-employment agreement, and causing or threatening prejudice to the client.
  2. Respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by failing to respond to disciplinary inquiries and failing to appear for a subpoenaed deposition.
  3. Respondent violated Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A) and VI(1)(D) by failing to file a biennial certificate of registration, pay the registration fee, and provide current office and residence addresses to the Attorney Registration Section.
  4. An indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio was appropriate.

Key quotations

As we have consistently held, neglect of legal matters and the failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation warrant an indefinite suspension from the practice of law. (¶ 16)
Respondent is therefore indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent. (¶ 17)

Factual background

Treneff represented a client charged with driving under the influence, but failed to appear at a motion hearing and a later court date, failed to notify the client of a scheduled hearing, and failed to respond to repeated client communications. The client was arrested after missing a hearing and ultimately appeared without counsel and pleaded guilty. Treneff also failed to respond to disciplinary inquiries or appear for a subpoenaed deposition, and failed to register, pay required registration fees, or update his office and residence addresses.

Procedural history

Disciplinary Counsel filed a three-count complaint against Treneff. Treneff was served but did not answer, so the master commissioner granted default and found misconduct; the board adopted those findings and recommended an indefinite suspension. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the violations and imposed an indefinite suspension, taxing costs to respondent.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…