Stark County Bar Association v. WatkinsStark County Bar Association v. Watkins
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Moyer, Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook, Lundberg Stratton (per curiam)
Also in 1997, after respondent attended a hearing in a divorce action on behalf of Teresa A. Day, in which she was awarded one-half of her ex-husband‘s stock option plan, he failed to prepare a follow-up Qualified Domestic Relations Order or return Day‘s phone calls.
Dena Metz paid respondent a $500 retainer in September 1997 to represent her in a divorce case. Although he appeared at the initial hearing, respondent failed to keep in contact with Metz, did not appear at a scheduled hearing, and did not acknowledge Metz‘s termination letter to him. He also failed to advise Metz of a show cause hearing for her failure to cooperate with discovery requests, which respondent had not forwarded to her. As a result of her failure to appear, the court issued a warrant for Metz‘s arrest. Ultimately, Metz retained another attorney to complete her divorce proceeding, and respondent never refunded the retainer that she had paid to him.
In the spring of 1998, William Welker retained respondent to represent him in a breach of contract action. On April 30, 1998, respondent dismissed the case without prejudice. Throughout the remainder of 1998 and the first part of 1999, Welker could not contact respondent.
After Jennifer R. Greene complained to the Stark County Bar Association, relator herein, that respondent had in January 1998 voluntarily dismissed without prejudice a malpractice action that he had filed for Greene and had refused to contact her, respondent refiled the action against the three defendants. However, the court issued summary judgment in favor of two defendants when respondent failed to respond to those defendants’ motion. Respondent dismissed the action against the other defendant without prejudice. He did not advise Greene of either the granting of the summary judgment or the dismissal.
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel.
Upon review, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.