Lorain County Bar Association v. Nelson, 144 Ohio St. 3d 414

Nelson II was admitted to practice in 2003 and faced a grievance in February 2014 alleging neglect of a single client matter.
Mary Martinez retained Nelson in July 2008 for a personal-injury case; Nelson failed to respond to multiple updates and did not inform Martinez of case status.
Nelson filed a complaint without notifying Martinez, conducted no discovery, and dismissed the suit without her knowledge or consent, later failing to refile timely.
Martinez lost the opportunity to pursue her claims due to Nelson’s actions, and Nelson did not inform her that his malpractice insurance had lapsed.
After representation ended, Nelson did not return Martinez’s case file as requested; a grievance was filed in March 2013, and Nelson eventually cooperated after notice of intent to file a misconduct complaint.
The Board of Professional Conduct found multiple Rule violations (1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)-(d), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), and Gov.Bar R V(4)(G) then V(9)(G)) and recommended a public reprimand, which the Supreme Court adopted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Nelson commit professional misconduct by neglect and poor communication?	Nelson violated 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.4(c), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), and Gov.Bar R V(4)(G)/V(9)(G).	Nelson cooperated in the disciplinary process and the conduct was between Godles and Boulger—sanction should be modest.	Yes; violations established and misconduct found.
Is public reprimand the appropriate sanction here?	Board’s recommended sanction is supported by comparable cases with similar neglect.	A lesser sanction could be warranted given mitigation and cooperation.	Public reprimand adopted.
Do aggravating and mitigating factors justify the sanction?	Aggravating factors (initial noncooperation, client vulnerability) outweigh mitigators.	Mitigating factors (no prior discipline, no selfish motive, single client impact, eventual cooperation) lessen severity.	Factors weighed; result is public reprimand.

Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Godles, 128 Ohio St.3d 279 (2010-Ohio-6274) (similar isolated neglect; lack of communication; no dishonest motive)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Boulger, 88 Ohio St.3d 325 (2000) (neglect and dismissal of cases; failure to respond; cooperation deficiency)