Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall. 2 [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 3 Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Permanent disbarment -- Failure to 4 cooperate with efforts to investigate allegations of misconduct 5 -- Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice -- 6 Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law. 7 (No. 95-2126 Submitted December 6, 1995 Decided February 28, 8 9 10 1996.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-18. 11 In a complaint filed on February 6, 1995, relator, Office of 12 Disciplinary Counsel, charged that respondent, David Steele Marshall of 13 Mentor, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0031544, had completely failed to 14 cooperate with efforts to investigate allegations of his misconduct and had 15 thereby violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and DR 1-102(A)(5) (conduct 16 prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 1-102(A)(6) (conduct 17 adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law). Respondent was served 18 notice of the complaint, but did not answer. A panel of the Board of 19 Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 1 ( board ) heard the matter on relator s motion for default, filed pursuant to 2 Gov.Bar. R V(6)(F). 3 On April 9, 1993, relator received a grievance alleging that 4 respondent had neglected his representation of an Orient Correctional 5 Institute inmate. Relator sent a letter of inquiry about the grievance, which 6 respondent received on April 27, 1993. On May 11, 1993, respondent s 7 counsel replied by asking for additional time to respond; however, the 8 counsel withdrew prior to forwarding any response. Respondent offered no 9 other reply to the letter of inquiry. 10 Thereafter, respondent was served with a subpoena duces tecum 11 issued by the board that commanded his appearance and the production of 12 documents on September 16, 1993. Respondent contacted relator on the 13 preceding day to reschedule his appearance, but he also did not appear on 14 the alternate date to which respondent and relator had agreed. Respondent 15 was served a second subpoena duces tecum commanding his appearance and 16 the production of certain documents on June 1, 1994. He also did not 17 comply with the second subpoena. 2 1 In August 1994, respondent was issued a six-month suspension from 2 the practice of law for his professional neglect and dishonesty in Lake Cty. 3 Bar Assn. v. Marshall (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 82, 637 N.E.2d 301. 4 On January 25, 1995, respondent was found in contempt for failing to 5 comply with the board s two subpoenas. Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall 6 (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 1450, 644 N.E.2d 655. 7 indefinitely from the practice of law for his noncompliance. To date, he has 8 done nothing to purge himself of this contempt. He was suspended 9 The panel unanimously granted the motion for default and found that 10 respondent had committed the misconduct charged in the complaint. A 11 majority of the panel recommended that respondent be permanently 12 disbarred for his demonstrated disdain for the disciplinary process. One 13 panel member, however, recommended that respondent receive an indefinite 14 suspension. 15 16 The board concurred in the panel s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommended permanent disbarment. 3 1 2 3 Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Harald F. Craig III, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. Per Curiam. We adopt the board s findings of misconduct and 4 recommendation. Respondent is, therefore, ordered permanently disbarred 5 from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent. 6 7 8 Judgment accordingly. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur. 9 4
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.
