2012 Ohio 3915
Ohio2012Background
- Ford III was admitted to practice in 1977 and faced a three-count disciplinary complaint for neglect, incompetence, excessive fees, poor communication, and noncooperation.
- Relator alleged Ford neglected Ellie Justice’s divorce matter, failed to file a proper QDRO, and did not forward a quitclaim deed or communicate status for years.
- Ford also represented Darryl Moore for a $5,000 flat fee; Moore paid $3,250–$3,500 via third parties; Ford did not timely file a 2255 motion and later refused a refund.
- Ford failed to respond to two certified inquiries from the disciplinary board and later disclosed hospitalization, delaying responses further.
- A master commissioner found misconduct on multiple counts; the board adopted, and the court suspended Ford for two years with six months stayed conditioned on restitution.
- Restitution ordered: $400 to Sharleen Williams (Justice’s fee payer) and $3,500 to Claude Carson (Moore’s fee payer).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Ford neglect client matters and miscommunicate prospective settlement matters? | Ford neglected Justice’s QDRO and failed to keep informed. | Ford contends efforts were made; delays were due to health issues. | Yes; violations for neglect and communication were proven. |
| Did Ford provide competent representation and impose an improper or excessive fee? | Ford failed to provide competent representation and charged or accepted excessive fees. | Fee disputes were disputed; Moore authorized fee but paperwork lacking. | Yes; violations by Ford for competence and fee issues were established. |
| Did Ford fail to cooperate with disciplinary investigations? | Ford failed to respond to inquiries and did not file required complaints. | Ford later retained counsel and provided some information, but not sufficient. | Yes; violation of cooperation requirements was proven. |
| What sanction is warranted given the misconduct and aggravating/mitigating factors? | Indefinite suspension or two-year suspension with strict conditions warranted for multiple offenses. | Health issues and long practice history argued for tempered sanction. | Two-year suspension with six months stayed, plus restitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hallquist, 128 Ohio St.3d 480 (2011-Ohio-1819) (two-year suspension with six months stayed for neglect and minimal cooperation)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Noel, 126 Ohio St.3d 56 (2010-Ohio-2714) (two-year suspension with six months stayed for neglect and cooperation violations)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Torian, 106 Ohio St.3d 14 (2005-Ohio-3216) (precedent supporting serious sanctions for neglect and noncooperation)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder, 87 Ohio St.3d 211 (1999-Ohio-) (sanctions for repeated misconduct and failure to cooperate)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Boylan, 85 Ohio St.3d 115 (1999-Ohio-) (pattern of neglect and cooperation failure supports suspension)