[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                  ALLEN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILLIAMS.
            [Cite as Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Williams, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Six-month suspension with entire six months
        stayed with one-year probation—Dismissal of appeal in criminal case
        without clients’ consent.
      (No. 00-2251—Submitted February 7, 2001—Decided June 13, 2001.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-71.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 1} On December 18, 1996, James and Richard Hardin were convicted by
the Court of Common Pleas of Hardin County of receiving stolen property, a felony.
In addition, James Hardin was found guilty of felony theft. Sentencing took place
in February 1997. On March 6, 1997, respondent, Jeffrey G. Williams of Lima,
Ohio, Attorney 

 filed a notice of appeal on their behalf.
On the day the appellate brief was due, respondent dismissed their appeal, and the
judgments became final.
        {¶ 2} On October 15, 1999, relator, Allen County Bar Association, filed a
complaint alleging that the Hardins did not give consent to the dismissals and that
therefore respondent violated several Disciplinary Rules. Respondent answered,
and the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline (“board”).
        {¶ 3} Based on stipulations and evidence received at a hearing on
September 1, 2000, the panel found that respondent, who had represented the
Hardins at their criminal trial, agreed to represent them on appeal. The panel found
that respondent dismissed the appeal because after examining the transcript, he
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




believed that there was no error except one possibly related to venue. Respondent
did not raise the venue issue on appeal because he believed that the judge in
Auglaize County, where venue might have been proper, would sentence the Hardins
to prison, whereas the Hardins’ present sentence was probation. Respondent
admitted that in seventeen years of practicing law, he had not taken any criminal
appeals although he had substantial experience with criminal cases. He also
admitted that he was unaware that under Ohio law, by using what is known as an
“Anders brief,” he could have submitted a request to the appellate court that it
inspect the trial record for any appellate issues.
       {¶ 4} The respondent claimed that he had advised the Hardins that he would
dismiss the case if he found that there was no error to support the appeal and that
the Hardins consented. However, the Hardins claimed that respondent dismissed
the appeal without their permission. The panel found that although respondent may
have made some effort to advise the Hardins that the appeal would be dismissed,
that effort was inadequate and ineffective.
       {¶ 5} The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-
101(A)(2) (handling a legal matter without preparation adequate in the
circumstances), 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek the lawful objectives of the client by
reasonable means), and 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract for professional
services).
       {¶ 6} The panel noted in mitigation that respondent cooperated with the
relator and regretted his actions. It also found that the Hardins did not pay
respondent in full for his trial work and that the $1,000 the Hardins paid respondent
to pursue their appeal covered costs of transcripts and filing fees but no appellate
attorney fees. In addition, the panel noted that respondent had previously received
a public reprimand from this court. Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams (1990), 

, 

.




                                           2
                                January Term, 2001




       {¶ 7} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for six months with the entire six months stayed. Respondent would
be placed on probation for one year, during which time he would complete six hours
of continuing legal education regarding client communication, office management,
and billing, and during probation, he would cooperate fully with a mentor appointed
by relator to ensure that respondent uses adequate procedures to communicate with
his clients and keeps them well informed about their cases. The board adopted the
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
       {¶ 8} After review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice
of law for six months with the entire six months stayed. Further, respondent is
hereby placed on probation for one year during which time he shall complete six
hours of continuing legal education regarding client communication, office
management, and billing. During his probation he shall also cooperate fully with a
monitoring attorney appointed by relator to ensure that he uses adequate procedures
to communicate with his clients and keeps them well informed about their cases.
Failure to meet the terms of this probation will result in the imposition of the actual
suspension. Costs are taxed to respondent.
                                                              Judgment accordingly.
       DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
       MOYER, C.J., dissents.
                                __________________
       MOYER, C.J., dissenting.
       {¶ 9} I would suspend respondent for six months and not stay the
suspension.
                                __________________
       Jerry O. Pitts and John C. Keenehan, for relator.




                                          3
                    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




Richard T. Reese, for respondent.
                      __________________




                                4