disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Troxell, Columbus Bar Assn. v.
129 Ohio St.3d 133, 2011-Ohio-3178. Decided 7/6/2011.
Case Summaries- 337
Respondent neglected client matters, failed to provide competent representation, failed to reasonably
communicate with clients, failed to promptly disburse funds, and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary
investigation. This case was brought for default judgment and referred to a master commissioner. In
Count One, respondent negotiated a settlement for his client in 2004 and retained a portion to cover any
potential liens on the settlement. Respondent has never provided an accounting for, or a refund of, the
money. Respondent failed to respond to letters of inquiry from relator and promised to provide
documentation relating to the case, but never did. This conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4 (reasonable
communication with a client), 1.15(d) (requiring prompt delivery of funds to the client), 8.1(b)
(knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority), 8.4(b) (illegal act
that reflects adversely on the lawyer‘s honesty or trustworthiness), and 8.4(h) (conduct that adversely
reflects on the lawyer‘s fitness to practice law). In Count Two, respondent negotiated a settlement with a
tortfeasor‘s insurance company, but never informed his client, cashed the check, or returned an executed
release. The client eventually settled the claim with different counsel. Respondent never responded to
relator‘s letters of inquiry. This conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring competent representation),
1.3 (requiring reasonable diligence), 1.4, 1.15(d), and 8.4(h), as well as 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
(cooperation with a disciplinary investigation). In Count Three, respondent failed to respond to relator‘s
letters of inquiry involving a third grievant. Although relator dismissed the underlying misconduct in
this count, respondent‘s actions violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. (V)(4)(G). In aggravation,
respondent acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in
the disciplinary process, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, caused harm to
vulnerable clients, and failed to make restitution. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (d), (e), (g), (h), and
(i). In mitigation, respondent has no prior disciplinary record. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).
Relying on Kaplan (2010), Goodlet (2007), and Mathewson (2007), the board adopted the master
commissioner‘s recommendation of an indefinite suspension. The Court adopted the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the board‘s recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.15(d), 8.1(b), 8.4(b), 8.4(h); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
Aggravation: (b), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i)
Mitigation: (a)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension