Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Watson - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Watson, 92 Ohio St.3d 413, 2001-Ohio-1264]

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. WATSON.
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Watson (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 413.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Neglect of several
entrusted legal matters and betrayal of clients' trust.
(No. 01-369 -- Submitted April 2, 2001 -- Decided July 18, 2001.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-52.
__________________

Per Curiam. On March 16, 2000, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association,
filed an amended complaint charging respondent, Martin L. Watson IV of West
Chester, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0062359, in eight counts with violations
of the Code of Professional Responsibility arising out of the neglect of several
legal matters entrusted to him. Although a Butler County deputy sheriff
personally served the complaint, respondent failed to answer. Relator's motion
for default was referred by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline ("board") to Master Commissioner Harry W. White.

Based on affidavits attached to the motion for default and a deposition of
respondent on January 5, 2000, the master commissioner made the following
findings. In February 1999, Julia A. Rowlett paid respondent a $675 retainer to
file a personal bankruptcy for her. Thereafter, respondent failed to respond to any
of Rowlett's inquiries or to her request for a return of the retainer, although he
admitted receiving those requests.

In November 1998, respondent quoted Kurt and Carol Saile a fee of
$2,200 for a living trust. The Sailes provided respondent with deeds to real estate,
stock certificates, bonds, certificates of title, and limited partnership documents.
Although the Sailes executed a formal trust document in May 1999, which

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
respondent retained, they were unable thereafter to contact respondent. After they
informed him that his services were terminated, respondent failed to return their
documents.

Carole Spurlock paid respondent a $1,000 retainer in two installments and
in June 1999 gave him a car title, a copy of a deed, and other documents, which
were to be transferred to a living trust. When Spurlock was unable to contact
respondent, she stopped payment on one of the retainer checks. Respondent later
met with her about revising some of the living trust documents and returned the
car title but none of the other documents. Respondent then failed to meet with
Spurlock or return any other documents to her.

In addition, the master commissioner found that after respondent filed an
application in May 1995 in the Hamilton County Probate Court to relieve the
estate of Clarence Hall from administration, he failed to appear for a hearing. No
entry to transfer the estate was filed and the court's efforts to contact respondent
were unsuccessful. The court dismissed the application in October 1998 for want
of administration. Respondent did not reply to the inquiries of the attorney for the
estate of Nancy Hall or to relator when asked about this matter.

In April 1998, Douglas Heckman paid respondent a fee of $1,125 to
handle his father's estate, but respondent did not initiate any proceedings.
Although respondent acknowledged that he received the fee, he had no
recollection of the case.

In June 1999, Christopher C. Coors paid respondent a $600 retainer and a
deposit for court costs of $250 to handle a marriage dissolution on an expedited
basis. A year later, respondent had still not prepared the separation agreement
and did not respond to Coors's request for a return of the retainer.

In January 1998, Dennis Leppert retained respondent to probate the estate
of his father, James P. Leppert. In June 1998, May 1999, and July 1999, the
probate court issued citations to Leppert for failure to file an inventory and
2

January Term, 2001
accounts. When confronted with the delay, respondent agreed to waive all fees
and to cover expenses to the estate caused by his delay. He then took a $1,500 fee
from the estate for expenses and filed an estate tax return that must be amended to
correct an error. In August 1999, the state of Ohio assessed penalties with respect
to the estate tax return in the amount of $3,430. Respondent had not provided
Dennis Leppert with an accounting for the estate as of July 2000.

The master commissioner also found that in January 1999, Juanita White
paid respondent a retainer of $150 to probate the estate of her mother. At the
time, White gave respondent sixteen $300 United States savings bonds and certain
legal documents. Since then, she has been unable to contact respondent or obtain
the return of the bonds or documents.

In March 1999, D. Christine Walker paid respondent a retainer of $1,500
to initiate a divorce proceeding. Respondent did not timely respond to Walker's
requests that he file a court action against her husband who was threatening her
with criminal prosecution. In September 1999, respondent took possession of two
checks totaling $56,000, which represented proceeds from the sale of Walker's
home. Since then, respondent has failed to communicate with Walker or return
her documents.

Similarly, after Jerry Eaton paid respondent $1,000 to represent him in a
divorce, respondent made one court appearance on Eaton's behalf. Thereafter,
Eaton was unable to contact respondent, and his newly retained attorney was
unable to obtain Eaton's file. No portion of the $1,000 retainer was refunded.

Except for replies to the Coors and Leppert grievances, respondent did not
reply to the grievances filed against him. Nor did respondent return the
documents or the retainers paid to him. Although respondent did appear for a
deposition, he did not produce the documents requested by relator in a subpoena
duces tecum and, except for returning some documents to the Sailes, he has not
returned any documents to his former clients.
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

The master commissioner concluded that respondent's conduct violated
DR 2-110(A)(3) (a lawyer who withdraws from representation shall promptly
refund any unearned advance fee), 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an
entrusted legal matter), 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client
funds or property to which the client is entitled), 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not
engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (a
lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer's ability to
practice law), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to
assist or testify in an investigation or hearing). The master commissioner
recommended that the respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of
law.

The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
master commissioner.

We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and adopt the findings
and conclusions of the board. Respondent's neglect of his clients and his
betrayal of their trust warrant a substantial penalty. Respondent is hereby
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for an indefinite period. Costs are
taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ.,
concur.

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents.
__________________

LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the
penalty recommended by the board and adopted by the majority. Respondent's
pattern was so egregious as to amount to more than mere neglect. His action in
accepting retainers from several clients, failing to follow through on any of the
promised services, and refusing to refund retainers or client documents when
4

January Term, 2001
terminated rise to the level of theft. His clients suffered serious harm.
Respondent has not even bothered to respond to the disciplinary complaint. I
believe that he has forfeited his right to practice law in Ohio. I would therefore
disbar the respondent.
__________________

Beth I. Silverman and Ellen Essig, for relator.
__________________
5