Work Stoppage

I am a huge fan of any state high court that provides live-time access to oral arguments.

Ohio is one of the jurisdictions that has this valuable service.

The web page of the Surreme Court has a summary of an argument scheduled for this Wednesday:

Disciplinary Counsel v. Vincent Ferdinand Gonzalez, Sr., Case no. 2013-0222

The Board of Commissioners on   Grievances and Discipline has recommended that the law license of  Cleveland attorney Vincent F. Gonzalez be indefinitely suspended for multiple  counts of professional misconduct including commingling his own and his wife’s  personal funds with client funds held in his office trust account, failing to  maintain required records to account for funds he received and disbursed on  behalf of clients, and abandoning a client during the last day of her divorce  trial after the court denied him permission to withdraw from the case.

With regard to the divorce case, the disciplinary board found that  after concluding that the court would not approve an award of attorney fees to  his client, Gonzalez advised the court that he was withdrawing from the case  because he would not “work for free.” After the magistrate presiding at the  trial expressly refused to allow him to withdraw, the board found that Gonzalez  refused to continue the cross-examination of his client’s husband, withdrew two  exhibits that had already been admitted into evidence, failed to call any  witnesses or to question his client when she took the witness stand, and  delivered a perfunctory 30-second closing statement.

In recommending an indefinite suspension as the appropriate sanction  for this misconduct, the board cited the aggravating factors that Gonzalez  committed multiple rule violations, failed to produce requested client files  and was otherwise uncooperative with disciplinary authorities, refused to  acknowledge the wrongfulness of his actions, and was previously disciplined in  2000 for engaging in undignified conduct degrading to a tribunal.  

Gonzalez has filed objections to the disciplinary board’s findings and  recommended sanction. He specifically disputes a finding that he  misappropriated $1,300 from a settlement he obtained for a client based on Gonzalez’s  unclear accounting for those funds, and has submitted an affidavit from the  client affirming that he received all funds he was entitled to receive from the  settlement. Gonzalez also disputes the misconduct attributed to him based on  his handling of the divorce matter, pointing out that his client did not complain  about his representation or dispute that she had received a fair outcome from  the trial, because she had discharged him prior to the final day’s proceedings  based on her inability to cover additional legal fees and her anticipation that  the court was going to base its support order on her husband’s recommendation  regardless of any alternative arguments she presented.

In response to Gonzalez’s objections, the Office  of Disciplinary Counsel has filed a brief noting that most of the rule  violations found by the board are undisputed, and arguing that the transcript  of the final day of the divorce trial supports the board’s finding that  Gonzalez effectively abandoned his client and defied the court’s directive that  he remain on the job by refusing to provide any effective representation after  he concluded that he wouldn’t be compensated to his satisfaction. In light of  Gonzalez’s multiple violations and dismissive  attitude toward the disciplinary process itself, counsel urges the court to  adopt the board’s recommended sanction of an indefinite license suspension.

These oral argument videos can be a useful resource to teach law students about the workings of bar discipline. (Mike Frisch)