Trumbull County Bar Ass'n v. Large, 980 N.E.2d 1021

Respondent John Harold Large, admitted to practice in 1997; prior discipline in 2009.
Relator Trumbull County Bar Association filed a four-count misconduct complaint against Large on April 11, 2011.
Hearing before a BCGD panel on Jan. 25, 2012 led to findings of multiple rule violations and aggravating factors.
Ward matter: Large deposited a $2,000 retainer into his operating account (not a trust account), filed a divorce after Ward fired him, and delayed refund of fees/files.
Natali matter: Large failed to file the bankruptcy promptly after payment, failed to inform Natali of his suspension, and did not timely refund the retainer.
Burk matter: Large failed to inform Burk of his suspension, failed to place fees in trust, and did not refund unearned fees; relief granted to Burk was delayed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Large violated 1.3 and 1.15 in Ward matter.	Ward contends neglect and improper fund handling.	Large maintains his actions were not violations.	Yes; violations established.
Whether Large violated 1.3 and 1.15 in Natali matter.	Natali was neglected and prepaid fees were mishandled.	No deliberate violation shown beyond suspension.	Yes; violations established (8.4 not found).
Whether Large violated 1.3, 1.4, and 1.15(c) in Burk matter.	Burk suffered harm from suspension-related neglect and fee handling.	Oversight and timing issues not intentional misconduct.	Yes for 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and 1.15(c); 8.4(d)/(h) not proven.
Whether Large violated the suspension/reinstatement order (including 3.3(a)).	Respondent made false statements about pending formal discipline.	Differences between investigation vs. formal charge negate misrepresentation.	Yes; 3.3(a) violation established; 8.4 not upheld on this count.
What is the appropriate sanction for Large's misconduct?	Two-year suspension with no stay or with limited stay justified given pattern of misconduct.	A shorter or fully stayed sanction may be appropriate.	Two-year suspension with six months stayed, plus Client Security Fund reimbursement requirement.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Large, 122 Ohio St.3d 35 (2009-Ohio-2022) (prior discipline informing the current proceedings)
Trumbull Cty. Bar Ass’n v. Large, 134 Ohio St.3d 172 (2012-Ohio-5482) (current disciplinary decision under review)