The opinion
[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 92 Ohio St.3d 413.]
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. WATSON.
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Watson, 2001-Ohio-1264.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Neglect of several
entrusted legal matters and betrayal of clients’ trust.
(No. 01-369—Submitted April 2, 2001—Decided July 18, 2001.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-52.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} On March 16, 2000, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed an
amended complaint charging respondent, Martin L. Watson IV of West Chester,
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0062359, in eight counts with violations of the
Code of Professional Responsibility arising out of the neglect of several legal
matters entrusted to him. Although a Butler County deputy sheriff personally
served the complaint, respondent failed to answer. Relator’s motion for default was
referred by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”) to
Master Commissioner Harry W. White.
{¶ 2} Based on affidavits attached to the motion for default and a deposition
of respondent on January 5, 2000, the master commissioner made the following
findings. In February 1999, Julia A. Rowlett paid respondent a $675 retainer to file
a personal bankruptcy for her. Thereafter, respondent failed to respond to any of
Rowlett’s inquiries or to her request for a return of the retainer, although he
admitted receiving those requests.
{¶ 3} In November 1998, respondent quoted Kurt and Carol Saile a fee of
$2,200 for a living trust. The Sailes provided respondent with deeds to real estate,
stock certificates, bonds, certificates of title, and limited partnership documents.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Although the Sailes executed a formal trust document in May 1999, which
respondent retained, they were unable thereafter to contact respondent. After they
informed him that his services were terminated, respondent failed to return their
documents.
{¶ 4} Carole Spurlock paid respondent a $1,000 retainer in two installments
and in June 1999 gave him a car title, a copy of a deed, and other documents, which
were to be transferred to a living trust. When Spurlock was unable to contact
respondent, she stopped payment on one of the retainer checks. Respondent later
met with her about revising some of the living trust documents and returned the car
title but none of the other documents. Respondent then failed to meet with Spurlock
or return any other documents to her.
{¶ 5} In addition, the master commissioner found that after respondent filed
an application in May 1995 in the Hamilton County Probate Court to relieve the
estate of Clarence Hall from administration, he failed to appear for a hearing. No
entry to transfer the estate was filed and the court’s efforts to contact respondent
were unsuccessful. The court dismissed the application in October 1998 for want
of administration. Respondent did not reply to the inquiries of the attorney for the
estate of Nancy Hall or to relator when asked about this matter.
{¶ 6} In April 1998, Douglas Heckman paid respondent a fee of $1,125 to
handle his father’s estate, but respondent did not initiate any proceedings. Although
respondent acknowledged that he received the fee, he had no recollection of the
case.
{¶ 7} In June 1999, Christopher C. Coors paid respondent a $600 retainer
and a deposit for court costs of $250 to handle a marriage dissolution on an
expedited basis. A year later, respondent had still not prepared the separation
agreement and did not respond to Coors’s request for a return of the retainer.
{¶ 8} In January 1998, Dennis Leppert retained respondent to probate the
estate of his father, James P. Leppert. In June 1998, May 1999, and July 1999, the
2
January Term, 2001
probate court issued citations to Leppert for failure to file an inventory and
accounts. When confronted with the delay, respondent agreed to waive all fees and
to cover expenses to the estate caused by his delay. He then took a $1,500 fee from
the estate for expenses and filed an estate tax return that must be amended to correct
an error. In August 1999, the state of Ohio assessed penalties with respect to the
estate tax return in the amount of $3,430. Respondent had not provided Dennis
Leppert with an accounting for the estate as of July 2000.
{¶ 9} The master commissioner also found that in January 1999, Juanita
White paid respondent a retainer of $150 to probate the estate of her mother. At
the time, White gave respondent sixteen $300 United States savings bonds and
certain legal documents. Since then, she has been unable to contact respondent or
obtain the return of the bonds or documents.
{¶ 10} In March 1999, D. Christine Walker paid respondent a retainer of
$1,500 to initiate a divorce proceeding. Respondent did not timely respond to
Walker’s requests that he file a court action against her husband who was
threatening her with criminal prosecution. In September 1999, respondent took
possession of two checks totaling $56,000, which represented proceeds from the
sale of Walker’s home. Since then, respondent has failed to communicate with
Walker or return her documents.
{¶ 11} Similarly, after Jerry Eaton paid respondent $1,000 to represent him
in a divorce, respondent made one court appearance on Eaton’s behalf. Thereafter,
Eaton was unable to contact respondent, and his newly retained attorney was unable
to obtain Eaton’s file. No portion of the $1,000 retainer was refunded.
{¶ 12} Except for replies to the Coors and Leppert grievances, respondent
did not reply to the grievances filed against him. Nor did respondent return the
documents or the retainers paid to him. Although respondent did appear for a
deposition, he did not produce the documents requested by relator in a subpoena
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
duces tecum and, except for returning some documents to the Sailes, he has not
returned any documents to his former clients.
{¶ 13} The master commissioner concluded that respondent’s conduct
violated DR 2-110(A)(3) (a lawyer who withdraws from representation shall
promptly refund any unearned advance fee), 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect
an entrusted legal matter), 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client
funds or property to which the client is entitled), 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not
engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (a
lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s ability to
practice law), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist
or testify in an investigation or hearing). The master commissioner recommended
that the respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.
{¶ 14} The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the master commissioner.
{¶ 15} We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and adopt the
findings and conclusions of the board. Respondent’s neglect of his clients and his
betrayal of their trust warrant a substantial penalty. Respondent is hereby
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for an indefinite period. Costs are taxed
to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ.,
concur.
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents.
__________________
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.
{¶ 16} I respectfully dissent from the penalty recommended by the board
and adopted by the majority. Respondent’s pattern was so egregious as to amount
to more than mere neglect. His action in accepting retainers from several clients,
4
January Term, 2001
failing to follow through on any of the promised services, and refusing to refund
retainers or client documents when terminated rise to the level of theft. His clients
suffered serious harm. Respondent has not even bothered to respond to the
disciplinary complaint. I believe that he has forfeited his right to practice law in
Ohio. I would therefore disbar the respondent.
__________________
Beth I. Silverman and Ellen Essig, for relator.
__________________
5