Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio disciplined Gregory Lawrence Peck for failing to provide competent and diligent representation in a consumer-protection lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment and substantial financial liability for his client. The court imposed a six-month suspension, fully stayed on the conditions that Peck commit no further misconduct and pay restitution of $25,927.56 plus interest.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Peck's neglect of the client's legal matter violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 and 1.3.
- What sanction was appropriate for Peck's misconduct in light of the resulting financial harm and the aggravating and mitigating factors.
- Whether restitution should be ordered as a condition of a fully stayed suspension.
Holdings
- Peck violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 by failing to provide competent representation and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness.
- A six-month suspension from the practice of law, fully stayed on the conditions that Peck make full restitution and commit no further misconduct, was the appropriate sanction.
- Peck was required to make full restitution of $25,927.56, plus four percent annual interest from May 17, 2010, to Donald Jones, d.b.a. We Sell Auto Sales.
Key quotations
“Therefore, we agree that a six-month suspension, fully stayed on the condition that Peck engage in no further misconduct, is the appropriate sanction in this case.” (¶ 20)
“Accordingly, Gregory Lawrence Peck is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that he make full restitution of $25,927.56, plus interest at the rate of four percent per annum from May 17, 2010, to Donald Jones, d.b.a. We Sell Auto Sales, and commit no further misconduct.” (¶ 21)
Factual background
Peck represented Donald Jones and We Sell Auto Sales in a consumer lawsuit but failed to answer a second amended complaint, respond to a motion for default judgment, seek leave to answer out of time, or present evidence of excusable neglect. The trial court entered a default judgment exceeding $25,000, including trebled compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, and interest, and Peck did not timely appeal. Peck also failed to provide Jones with information about his professional-liability insurance, and more than $6,000 was later garnished from Jones's accounts.
Procedural history
Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint charging Peck with professional misconduct arising from neglect of a client's legal matter. The parties stipulated to the facts, misconduct, aggravating and mitigating factors, and a recommended six-month suspension stayed in full. A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct adopted the stipulations and recommendation, and the board adopted the panel's findings and recommendation. The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the board's report, imposed the stayed suspension, and ordered restitution.