The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 176 Ohio St.3d 430.]
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. TREGRE.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Tregre, 2024-Ohio-3173.]
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct,
including failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client,
failing to deposit advance legal fees and expenses into a client trust account,
and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice—Two-
year suspension and restitution ordered.
(No. 2024-0493—Submitted May 7, 2024—Decided August 23, 2024.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme
Court, No. 2023-025.
__________________
The per curiam opinion below was joined by FISCHER, DEWINE,
DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ. KENNEDY, C.J., concurred in part and dissented in
part, with an opinion joined by DETERS, J. BRUNNER, J., did not participate.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Respondent, Calvin Sylvester Tregre Jr., of Cincinnati, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0073454, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in
2001. In a September 2023 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Tregre
with multiple professional-conduct violations arising from his alleged neglect of
five separate client matters, failure to reasonably communicate with the affected
clients, failure to properly handle two retainers, and initial failure to cooperate in
the resulting disciplinary investigation. The parties submitted stipulations of fact,
misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors, along with 66 stipulated
exhibits.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 2} After conducting a hearing, a panel of the Board of Professional
Conduct issued a report in which it found by clear and convincing evidence that
Tregre had committed the charged misconduct and recommended that we suspend
him from the practice of law for two years, order him to make restitution to two
clients, and order him to pay the costs of these proceedings. The panel also
recommended that Tregre’s reinstatement be conditioned on the completion of
three hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) focused on law-office
management and that he be required to serve a one-year period of monitored
probation. The board adopted the panel’s findings and recommendations. No
objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, we adopt the board’s
findings of misconduct and recommended sanction.
MISCONDUCT
Count One—The Bennett Matter
{¶ 3} The parties stipulated and the board found that in July 2020, Carla R.
Bennett and Arlisa E. Chatman retained Tregre to pursue a wrongful-death action
against the nursing home where their mother, Sarah E. Green, died on April 8, 2020.
However, only Bennett signed the contingent-fee agreement.
{¶ 4} In August 2020, Tregre filed an application for authority to administer
Green’s estate, along with several other forms, in the Hamilton County Probate
Court. He alleged that the estate was being opened to pursue a wrongful-death or
survival action and that there were no other assets to administer. Bennett was
appointed administrator of the estate. After later learning that Green had owned
two cars at the time of her death, Tregre filed several amended forms to disclose
the existence of those assets and transfer title of the cars. Tregre also prepared
letters for Bennett to request medical and billing records from three facilities where
Green had been treated. Although Tregre told Bennett that he would send the letters
to the medical facilities, he did not send them and neither he nor Bennett received
the records.
2
January Term, 2024
{¶ 5} Although Tregre assured Bennett that he was working on the case and
that he would take care of the filings, he did not timely file the inventory, account,
and certificate of fee agreement in accordance with the applicable statutes and a
local rule. See R.C. 2115.02 and 2109.301(B)(1); Hamilton Cty. Probate R. 71.1.
The probate court sent Tregre and Bennett delinquency notices regarding the
overdue fee-agreement and estate-inventory documents, and Tregre finally filed the
certificate of fee agreement more than two months late. However, he did not
respond to several other delinquency notices sent to him by the court bearing
extended deadlines for the inventory and account; and on at least one occasion,
Tregre disregarded an order to appear.
{¶ 6} In April 2021, the probate court dismissed Green’s estate case for
failure to prosecute. Tregre did not fully investigate Bennett’s wrongful-death
claim. Nor did he file a complaint or advise Bennett that her claim had no merit.
Bennett terminated Tregre’s representation after he stopped responding to her calls
and text messages.
{¶ 7} The parties stipulated and the board found that Tregre’s conduct
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep a client
reasonably informed about the status of a matter), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to
comply as soon as practicable with a client’s reasonable requests for information),
and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice). We adopt these findings of misconduct.
Counts Two and Three—The Bossie/Holliday and Landrum Matters
{¶ 8} Phillip O. Bossie Jr. died on July 2, 2019, after surgery at a Cincinnati
hospital. Shortly thereafter, his wife, Carla Bossie, retained Tregre to pursue a
wrongful-death action. Tregre later agreed to pursue an additional wrongful-death
claim on behalf of Phillip’s mother, Bertha Holliday. Tregre stopped responding
to Bossie’s and Holliday’s text messages and emails in late April 2021. Frustrated
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
by their inability to reach him, they tried to retain new counsel but were informed
that the statute of limitations for their claims had expired on July 2, 2021—two
years after Phillip’s death, see R.C. 2125.02(F)(1).
{¶ 9} Tregre engaged in similar misconduct while representing Gwinette
Landrum in a medical-malpractice matter arising from an April 8, 2021 back
surgery. Landrum retained Tregre on June 14, 2021, and from mid-August through
mid-October 2021, Tregre spoke briefly with Landrum on the phone and met with
her one time in her home, but he canceled one other meeting with her. In a
November 2021 letter to Landrum’s surgeon, Tregre notified the surgeon of his
representation, provided a notice to preserve evidence, and asked the surgeon to
have his legal counsel or insurance representative contact Tregre. After Tregre
failed to offer substantive information in response to Landrum’s repeated efforts to
contact him over a period of months, Landrum sent him two letters by certified
mail, both of which went unanswered. Tregre never filed a lawsuit on Landrum’s
behalf.
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated and the board found that Tregre’s conduct in
the Bossie/Holliday and the Landrum matters violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3),
and 1.4(a)(4), and that his conduct in the Bossie/Holliday matter also violated
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(b) (requiring a lawyer to explain a matter to the extent reasonably
necessary for the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation).
We adopt these findings of misconduct.
Count Four—The Hudgel Matter
{¶ 11} In October 2020, Mari Jo Hudgel retained Tregre to open an estate
for her father, Percy P. Peckhem Jr., who died intestate in January 1999. The
purpose of the estate was to obtain probate-court approval to distribute the proceeds
of a confidential, precomplaint wrongful-death settlement that had already been
negotiated by Wagstaff & Cartmell, L.L.P., a Missouri law firm. Hudgel, who was
Peckhem’s only next of kin, signed a fee agreement with Tregre in which she
4
January Term, 2024
authorized Wagstaff & Cartmell to pay Tregre a $2,500 retainer, from which he
was to be paid a rate of $250 an hour, drawn from the retainer as the legal work
was performed. The agreement further stated that Tregre agreed to “cap his
attorney’s fees at $2,500.00.” (Boldface and emphasis in original.)
{¶ 12} Tregre received a $2,500 check from Wagstaff & Cartmell and
deposited it into his client trust account on October 12, 2021, bringing the account
balance to $2,506.39. Within a week, Tregre had paid the entire $2,500 retainer to
himself even though he had not earned the fee or received probate-court approval
to pay his fee, as required by Warren Cty. Probate R. 24(A).
{¶ 13} Tregre filed an application to open Peckhem’s estate in the Warren
County Probate Court on October 27, 2021, and the court appointed Hudgel as the
estate’s administrator the following day. In November 2022, the probate court
issued notices to Tregre and Hudgel explaining that the estate’s annual status-
update report was past due. Later that month, Tregre filed a status report in which
he and Hudgel represented that the underlying wrongful-death action had been
settled but that a lien-resolution process was pending, thereby preventing
disbursement of proceeds from the underlying claim. Tregre and Hudgel asked that
the estate remain open for an additional year.
{¶ 14} In December 2022, Hudgel signed a postlien indemnification
agreement, in which she acknowledged that her settlement proceeds would be
subject to a $10,000 temporary holdback to satisfy any potential Medicare lien.
Later that month, Tregre told Hudgel that he would be filing the necessary
paperwork with the probate court sometime that week. But he did not meet with
Hudgel to review that paperwork until mid-January 2023. A few days after that
meeting, Tregre represented that he would file the documents “hopefully” that day.
But he did not file the documents and stopped responding to emails and voicemail
messages from Hudgel and a Wagstaff & Cartmell attorney.
5
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 15} Hudgel retained another attorney to complete the estate
administration. Tregre did not respond to that attorney’s requests for Hudgel’s file,
an itemized billing statement, and a refund of the unearned portion of Hudgel’s
retainer. Although Tregre did not complete the representation, he had not refunded
any portion of Hudgel’s $2,500 retainer at the time of his disciplinary hearing.
{¶ 16} The parties stipulated and the board found that Tregre’s conduct
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to
deposit advance legal fees and expenses into a client trust account, to be withdrawn
by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred), 1.16(d) (requiring a
lawyer to promptly deliver client papers and property as part of the termination of
representation), 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly refund any unearned fee
upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment), and 8.4(d).
Count Five—The Landingham Matter
{¶ 17} In March or April 2022, Anthony Landingham retained Tregre to
represent him in a workplace-discrimination action. Their fee agreement required
Landingham to pay a retainer of $2,250 and stated that Tregre would be paid $250
an hour as his legal work was performed. Tregre deposited Landingham’s cash
payment into his client trust account on April 19. Within six days of receiving the
retainer, he paid himself $2,200, leaving a balance of just $53.83 in his client trust
account. And on May 2, he withdrew the remainder of the retainer.
{¶ 18} Despite repeated attempts, Landingham was not able to reach Tregre
by telephone or text message for nearly a year. Tregre finally met with Landingham
in March 2023 and stated that he would be filing a complaint with the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission. But he once again stopped responding to Landingham’s
efforts to communicate with him and never filed Landingham’s complaint or
refunded any portion of the $2,250 retainer.
6
January Term, 2024
{¶ 19} The parties stipulated and the board found that Tregre’s conduct
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(c), and 1.16(e). We adopt these
findings of misconduct.
Count Six—Failure to Cooperate
{¶ 20} From October 2021 through July 2023, relator investigated the
misconduct described above and sent Tregre multiple letters of inquiry by mail,
email, and hand delivery. Relator also telephoned Tregre, issued subpoenas duces
tecum, and scheduled depositions. Tregre sought and obtained multiple extensions
of time to respond to those inquiries, and he met with relator in March 2022 and
March 2023. Although Tregre twice appeared pursuant to subpoena and promised
to provide requested documents, he did not participate in relator’s investigation in
any meaningful way. Indeed, as of the filing of the formal complaint, he had not
submitted any written responses to relator’s letters of inquiry or provided any of
the requested documentation. The parties therefore stipulated and the board found
that Tregre’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from
failing to disclose a material fact or knowingly failing to respond to a demand for
information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation). We adopt this
finding of misconduct.
SANCTION
{¶ 21} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions
imposed in similar cases.
{¶ 22} As for aggravating factors, the parties stipulated that Tregre had
engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, failed to
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary process, and has failed to make restitution of
$2,500 to Hudgel and $2,250 to Landingham. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3), (4),
7
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
(5), and (9). The board also found that Tregre acted with a dishonest or selfish
motive and caused harm to vulnerable clients. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2) and (8).
{¶ 23} As for mitigation, the parties stipulated that Tregre has a clean
disciplinary record. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1). The board adopted that finding
and also credited Tregre for his full and free disclosure to the board and cooperative
attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings after the complaint was filed. See
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(4). Additionally, Tregre testified that he had been seeing a
mental-health counselor, but he did not submit any information regarding his
treatment.
{¶ 24} The board noted that Tregre had practiced law for approximately 18
years without incident before his misconduct began in 2019. When questioned by
a panel member about what had changed to cause his downward spiral, Tregre
testified that his wife had suffered a catastrophic medical crisis in 2017 that left her
with significant disabilities and in need of constant care. Following the initial crisis,
Tregre lost two jobs before starting his own law firm and commencing his solo
practice, and all of the misconduct addressed herein occurred between 2020 and
2023 while he was a sole practitioner. Tregre explained that he has been his wife’s
caregiver since the onset of her medical condition and that she had suffered two
major setbacks during the time in which his misconduct occurred—though he did
not attempt to excuse his behavior on that ground.
{¶ 25} The board recognized that Tregre’s circumstances do not fall within
any of the mitigating factors specifically enumerated in Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C).
However, recognizing that Gov.Bar R. V(13)(A) directs it to consider “all relevant
factors” in determining the appropriate sanction for an attorney’s misconduct, the
board accorded those circumstances some mitigating effect. See Disciplinary
Counsel v. Evans, 2000-Ohio-227, ¶ 17 (stating that an attorney’s “mental state” is
one factor to be considered in determining the appropriate sanction for the
attorney’s misconduct).
8
January Term, 2024
{¶ 26} In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend for Tregre’s
misconduct—which includes 24 separate rule violations, including two violations
of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d), and the failure to make restitution to two clients—the board
began its analysis by considering four cases cited by relator to support the
imposition of an indefinite suspension. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Golden, 2002-
Ohio-5934; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Kodish, 2006-Ohio-4090; Cincinnati Bar Assn.
v. Fernandez, 2018-Ohio-3828; Disciplinary Counsel v. Vick, 2022-Ohio-2541.
{¶ 27} The attorney in Golden committed roughly 40 rule violations in her
handling of eight separate client matters over a period of approximately six years.
Golden neglected six separate client matters, failed to carry out six contracts of
employment, and failed to promptly refund unearned fees to two clients upon the
termination of her employment.
{¶ 28} In contrast to Tregre, Golden engaged in multiple instances of
dishonesty by misleading clients about the status of their legal matters, falsifying a
court order, and falsely representing that payments she personally made to a client
were the result of pending litigation. She also engaged in four instances of conduct
that was prejudicial to the administration of justice (compared to just two in this
case), and provided improper financial assistance to two clients, among other
violations. Like Tregre, Golden had failed to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary
investigations until after the relator filed his formal complaint.
{¶ 29} The aggravating factors in Golden, are comparable to those present
in this case. See id. at ¶ 18, 22-23. As for mitigation, Golden, like Tregre, had no
prior discipline, but Golden also made restitution to her clients before her
disciplinary hearing and established the existence of a qualifying mental disorder.
See 2002-Ohio-5934 at ¶ 18-19. We indefinitely suspended Golden from the
practice of law and conditioned her reinstatement on the submission of medical
proof that she was competent to resume the practice of law. Id. at ¶ 25.
9
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 30} The attorney in Kodish, 2006-Ohio-4090, committed 18 ethical
violations in her representation of more than ten clients, primarily in bankruptcy
proceedings. She neglected six separate client matters, represented allied
companies and individuals in separate bankruptcy proceedings without obtaining
informed consent regarding their conflicting interests, refused to account for a
bankruptcy client’s fee, and negotiated with a client in an attempt to limit liability
for her professional misconduct. Kodish also engaged in a sexual relationship with
the representative of two of her corporate clients.
{¶ 31} In addition to many of the same aggravating factors present in this
case, Kodish failed to acknowledge the wrongfulness of her misconduct. See id. at
¶ 56-58. Citing her “chronic indifference to her clients’ interests” and her “failure
to show appreciation for the breadth of her transgressions,” this court indefinitely
suspended Kodish from the practice of law. Id. at ¶ 70-71.
{¶ 32} The attorney in Fernandez, 2018-Ohio-3828, accepted referrals from
an out-of-state company that provided paralegal and paraprofessional services to
his law practice. He neglected three client matters referred to him by the company,
failed to exercise independent judgment and render candid advice to his clients, and
abdicated his duty to safeguard the client funds entrusted to his care by the
company. He also overdrew his client trust account, improperly retained unearned
fees, and did not cooperate in the disciplinary process until after the relator filed his
complaint.
{¶ 33} As aggravating factors, Fernandez stipulated that he had a prior
disciplinary offense, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple
offenses, and caused harm to his clients, who were “particularly vulnerable and in
dire need of protection from [their] creditors.” Id. at ¶ 13. In addition to finding
that Fernandez had “utterly failed to respond or cooperate in any way with relator’s
investigation,” id. at ¶ 14, we determined that he had acted with a selfish and
dishonest motive to maximize his profit and minimize his work, id. at ¶ 17-18. We
10
January Term, 2024
also declined to attribute mitigating effect to Fernandez’s claimed mental disorders,
noting that he had not submitted any evidence beyond his own testimony to
establish their existence under Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7). Fernandez at ¶ 21.
Finding that Fernandez’s selfish motive, lax business practices, poor judgment, and
mental-health issues presented an ongoing danger to the public, we indefinitely
suspended him from the practice of law. Id. at ¶ 22-23.
{¶ 34} Like Tregre, the attorney in Vick, 2022-Ohio-2541, neglected five
client matters, failed to reasonably communicate with the affected clients, failed to
deposit retainers into his client trust account, failed to promptly deliver papers and
property to one client on the termination of his representation, and engaged in
conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice. But Vick also failed
to refund more than $16,000 in unearned fees upon the termination of his
representation, id. at ¶ 31—more than three times the amount that Tregre
improperly retained in this case. In addition, Vick knowingly disobeyed an
obligation under the rules of a tribunal and intentionally failed to comply with a
legally proper discovery request submitted by an opposing party in a client’s case,
id. at ¶ 20—violations that were neither charged nor found in this case.
{¶ 35} The aggravating factors in Vick were identical to those of this case,
and Vick, like Tregre, had a clean disciplinary record, see id. at ¶ 22. We also have
credited Tregre for making full and free disclosure to the board and exhibiting a
cooperative attitude toward these disciplinary proceedings. But Vick received no
such credit, having failed to appear at his disciplinary hearing or file a sanction
brief—even after he requested and obtained an extension of time to file the brief.
Id. at ¶ 2. We indefinitely suspended Vick from the practice of law. Id. at ¶ 31.
We also ordered him to make restitution in excess of $16,000, complete 12 hours
of CLE in law-office and client-trust-account management as a condition of his
reinstatement to the practice of law, and serve a two-year period of monitored
probation upon his reinstatement. Id.
11
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 36} The board distinguished the facts in Golden, Kodish, Fernandez, and
Vick from the facts of this case. Specifically, it noted that Golden’s, Kodish’s, and
Vick’s respective misconduct resulted in more rule violations and/or involved more
clients than Tregre’s did. The board also emphasized that Kodish had engaged in
sexual relations with a client’s representative and did not appreciate the
wrongfulness of her misconduct, and it pointed out that Fernandez had had prior
discipline. And Vick had failed to appear for his disciplinary hearing and owed
significantly more restitution than Tregre owes to Hudgel and Landingham. In
contrast, the board recognized that Tregre has no prior discipline and that he had
fully stipulated to the facts and misconduct in this case, showed genuine remorse
for his misconduct, acknowledged the harm he caused to his clients, and offset his
initial failure to cooperate with his full cooperation and participation before the
board.
{¶ 37} While the board acknowledged that an indefinite suspension would
not be unreasonable for Tregre’s misconduct, it found that the facts of this case
were more similar to six cases in which we imposed two-year suspensions for
similar acts of misconduct—namely, Akron Bar Assn. v. Parkin, 2018-Ohio-5093,
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Roseman, 2019-Ohio-1850, Toledo Bar Assn. v. Berling,
2020-Ohio-2838, Disciplinary Counsel v. Dougherty, 2021-Ohio-1240, Cincinnati
Bar Assn. v. Ludwig, 2021-Ohio-3971, and Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Bruner, 2021-
Ohio-4048.
{¶ 38} Having considered those cases, the board recommends that we
suspend Tregre from the practice of law for two years, order him to make restitution
of $2,500 to Mari Jo Hudgel and $2,250 to Anthony Landingham within 90 days
of our disciplinary order, and order him to pay the costs of these proceedings. The
board further recommends that we condition Tregre’s reinstatement to the
profession on his completion of three hours of CLE focused on law-office
management, in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and that upon his
12
January Term, 2024
reinstatement, we require him to work with a monitoring attorney appointed by
relator for a period of one year.
{¶ 39} Of the cases considered by the board, we find Parkin, Berling, and
Ludwig to be most instructive.
{¶ 40} Parkin neglected three legal matters, failed to reasonably
communicate with three clients, and failed to deposit unearned fees from eight
clients into her client trust account. Parkin, 2018-Ohio-5093. Like Tregre, Parkin
failed to return papers, property, or unearned fees, although Parkin’s failures
affected three clients while Tregre’s affected just two. And while Parkin did not
engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, as Tregre did here,
she engaged in dishonesty by making a false representation to a court, failed to
inform a client of the possibility that he could be entitled to a full or partial refund
of a flat fee if she did not complete the representation, and failed to inform six
clients that she did not maintain professional-liability insurance. All told, Parkin
committed 28 rule violations compared to Tregre’s 24 rule violations in this case.
{¶ 41} As for aggravating and mitigating factors, Parkin, like Tregre,
engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, acted with a
dishonest or selfish motive, and harmed her clients, though she had no prior
disciplinary record. See id. at ¶ 28-29. And even though Parkin accepted
responsibility for only some of her misconduct and failed to acknowledge the
negative impact that her misconduct had on her clients, id. at ¶ 28-29, she did not
fail to cooperate in the disciplinary process as Tregre did here. Further, while there
was some question as to whether Parkin owed a refund of $625 to a single client,
id. at ¶ 36, that issue was not expressly included as an aggravating factor under
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(9) as it was in this case. We suspended Parkin from the
practice of law for two years, required her to make restitution of $625, and
conditioned her reinstatement on the completion of ten hours of CLE focused on
client communication and law-office management. Parkin at ¶ 36. We also ordered
13
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
her to serve a two-year period of monitored probation upon reinstatement to the
profession. Id.
{¶ 42} Berling neglected eight separate client matters (compared to the five
client matters that Tregre neglected in this case), Berling, 2020-Ohio-2838, failed
to reasonably communicate with five of those clients, and failed to deposit the
unearned fees of four separate clients—totaling more than $10,000—into his client
trust account. In addition to engaging in two instances of conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice, like Tregre did here, Berling also engaged in two
instances of dishonest conduct, solicited sexual activity from a client, failed to
ensure that his employee’s conduct was compatible with his professional
obligations, and appeared on behalf of a client at two hearings in a jurisdiction in
which he was not authorized to practice law. All but one of the aggravating factors
present in this case were present in Berling; Berling was not found to have failed to
cooperate in the disciplinary process. See id. at ¶ 35. Berling also refused to
acknowledge the wrongfulness of his misconduct and attempted to minimize his
behavior or shift blame to his clients and others. Id. And in addition to the
mitigating factors present in this case, Berling submitted evidence of his good
reputation. See id. at ¶ 36. He also submitted some evidence that he suffered from
several mental and physical disorders, but he did not submit sufficient evidence for
this court to accord those disorders any mitigating effect under Gov.Bar R.
V(13)(C)(7). Berling at ¶ 36.
{¶ 43} On those facts, we suspended Berling from the practice of law for
two years, ordered him to make restitution totaling $30,200 to seven clients, and
imposed conditions on his reinstatement to ensure that he was able to resume the
competent, ethical, and professional practice of law. Id. at ¶ 41.
{¶ 44} In a similar fashion to Tregre, Ludwig neglected two client matters,
failed to reasonably communicate with three clients, and failed to deliver a file and
funds that one of her clients was entitled to receive. Ludwig, 2021-Ohio-3971.
14
January Term, 2024
Ludwig also engaged in three instances of dishonest conduct in violation of
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c)—a violation not present in this case. See id. at ¶ 10, 15, 21.
Furthermore, Ludwig solicited and accepted substantial gifts from a client, and she
engaged in conduct that adversely reflected on her fitness to practice law by
personally accepting retainers from clients who had signed fee agreements with the
law firm that employed her without informing the law firm that those clients had
hired the firm or paid retainers. Ludwig committed 19 rule violations in all.
{¶ 45} In addition to most of the aggravating factors present in this case,
Ludwig’s license to practice law had been suspended based on an attorney-
registration violation for just over two years by the time we ruled on her disciplinary
case. Id. at ¶ 1 and 23. In contrast, Tregre’s clean disciplinary record is a mitigating
factor here. Mitigating factors in Ludwig consisted of Ludwig’s cooperation in the
disciplinary process, good-faith effort to make restitution—though it was not
complete at the time of her disciplinary hearing—and evidence of her good
character and reputation. Id. at ¶ 24-25. Here, Tregre testified that he considered
asking federal- and state-court judges, attorneys, and others to write letters on his
behalf, but that he chose not to, partly due to embarrassment and partly because he
“[couldn’t] live with [his circumstances] even possibly tainting their reputations.”
{¶ 46} We suspended Ludwig from the practice of law for two years, with
credit for the time served under her attorney-registration suspension, and ordered
her to make restitution of $316.50 to one of her clients. Ludwig at ¶ 30. After
considering evidence that Ludwig had been diagnosed with depression but was
unable to afford treatment and her own admission that she was not fit to practice
law at the time of her disciplinary hearing, id. at ¶ 24, 29, we ordered that she be
required to petition—rather than apply—for reinstatement and prove her fitness to
resume the practice of law, id. at ¶ 30; see Gov.Bar R. V(24) and (25).
{¶ 47} Having independently reviewed the record and having considered
Tregre’s misconduct, the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and our
15
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
precedent, we agree with the board’s assessment that the facts of this case are most
comparable to those of Parkin, Berling, and Ludwig. Because Tregre engaged in
the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law for nearly 20 years before
committing the charged misconduct, fully cooperated in the proceedings once
relator filed the formal complaint, testified with great candor, and conveyed
genuine remorse for his misconduct, we conclude that a two-year suspension, with
the additional conditions recommended by the board, will protect the public from
further harm.
CONCLUSION
{¶ 48} Accordingly, Calvin Sylvester Tregre Jr. is suspended from the
practice of law in Ohio for two years and ordered to make restitution of $2,500 to
Mari Jo Hudgel and $2,250 to Anthony Landingham within 90 days of the date of
this court’s order. In addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(24) and X,
Tregre’s reinstatement shall be conditioned on the completion of three hours of
CLE focused on law-office management. Upon reinstatement to the profession,
Tregre shall be required to serve a one-year period of monitored probation in
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21). Costs are taxed to Tregre.
Judgment accordingly.
__________________
KENNEDY, C.J., joined by DETERS, J., concurring in part and dissenting
in part.
{¶ 49} I agree with the majority opinion and the sanction of a two-year
suspension of respondent, Calvin Sylvester Tregre Jr., from the practice of law as
well as the requirement that he make restitution to two former clients. I part ways
with the majority only with regard to the term of monitored probation. I would
impose conditions on the monitored probation. Because the majority does not, I
dissent in part for the reasons set forth in Disciplinary Counsel v. Halligan, 2019-
Ohio-3748, ¶ 41-45 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
16
January Term, 2024
{¶ 50} I would impose the following conditions on Tregre’s one-year period
of monitored probation: (1) each month, Tregre shall give the monitoring attorney
copies of all new or modified fee agreements that he enters into with clients so that
the monitoring attorney can review them; (2) each month, Tregre shall give the
monitoring attorney his Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (“IOLTA”) statements
so that the monitoring attorney can review them; (3) each month, disciplinary
counsel or the monitoring attorney shall randomly review files of Tregre’s active
cases to ensure his compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct; (4) Tregre,
with the monitoring attorney, shall design a comprehensive plan to ensure that he
is reasonably diligent in the representation of his clients; and (5) Tregre shall
complete three hours of continuing legal education on IOLTA maintenance. In the
event that Tregre does not act with reasonable diligence in representing his clients,
disciplinary counsel or the monitoring attorney may limit the number of active
cases that he is allowed to maintain.
{¶ 51} Because the majority imposes no conditions on the monitored
probation, I dissent in part.
__________________
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Michelle A. Hall and
Melanie J. Williamson, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Calvin Sylvester Tregre Jr., pro se.
__________________
17