Disciplinary Counsel v. Henry

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio permanently disbarred James Russell Henry for extensive professional misconduct involving neglect of multiple client matters, failure to communicate, failure to return unearned fees and client documents, excessive fees, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations. The court adopted most of the findings of the disciplinary board, rejected unsupported violations involving one client, and concluded that the pattern of misconduct warranted permanent disbarment.

Holdings

1. The Supreme Court accepted the board's findings that Henry violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct through neglect of client matters, failure to communicate, failure to protect client interests upon termination, failure to return unearned fees and property, excessive charging, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law.
2. The court rejected and dismissed the alleged Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e) violation concerning the custody client in Count One because the record contained no sworn or certified prima facie evidence supporting that allegation. It also left undisturbed the rejection of the related Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) allegation as unsupported by the evidence.
3. Henry violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) with respect to each of the nine counts because he knowingly failed to respond to relator's demands for information during the investigations.
4. Permanent disbarment was warranted for Henry's pattern of neglect and failure to perform promised legal services, combined with his failure to return unearned fees and client documents and his complete disregard for the disciplinary proceedings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the record clearly and convincingly supported the board's findings that Henry violated the cited Rules of Professional Conduct and disciplinary-investigation rules.
2. Whether alleged violations unsupported by sworn or certified prima facie evidence should be dismissed.
3. What sanction was appropriate for Henry's pattern of neglect, failure to perform legal services, failure to return unearned fees and client property, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.

Disposition

other