The opinion
[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 94 Ohio St.3d 149.]
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. MCGRATH.
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. McGrath, 2002-Ohio-323.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Neglect of an entrusted
legal matter—Failing to carry out contract for professional employment—
Prejudicing or damaging client during course of professional
relationship—Failing to promptly deliver to client funds or property to
which client is entitled—Neglecting or refusing to assist or testify in
disciplinary investigation or hearing.
(No. 01-1558—Submitted October 16, 2001—Decided January 16, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-25.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} On April 9, 2001, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging respondent, James B. McGrath, Jr., of Cincinnati, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0021092, with neglect in his failure to represent
adequately his client, Indell Construction Corporation. Attempts by relator,
Cincinnati Bar Association, to serve the complaint at respondent’s residence and
office were unsuccessful, and relator finally served the complaint upon the Clerk
of the Supreme Court of Ohio as authorized by Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). When
relator’s subsequent attempts to contact respondent were fruitless, relator filed a
motion for default. The motion was referred by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline (“board”) to board member Judge Leo M. Spellacy for
ruling.
{¶ 2} Based upon the allegations of the complaint, the board member found
that in November 1995, Indell Construction Corporation retained respondent, and
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
in 1996, respondent agreed to recover payment from the Bernsteins for construction
work that Indell had done for them. Indell turned over corporate stock, documents
relating to business transactions, personal and corporate deeds, and contracts to
respondent. Respondent told Indell to have all its subcontractors call respondent.
{¶ 3} The board member further found that respondent did not reply when
contacted by Indell’s subcontractors or take any action on the dispute with the
Bernsteins. In fact, respondent did not contact Indell again. As a result, Indell was
unable to pay its subcontractors. Respondent did not return Indell’s documents
when requested, nor did respondent cooperate with relator’s investigation.
{¶ 4} The board member concluded that respondent’s inaction in this matter
violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail to carry out a contract for professional
employment), 7-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not prejudice or damage his client), 9-
102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client funds or property to which
the client is entitled), and, for failure to cooperate with relator, Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
(no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in an investigation or hearing).
The board member recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from
the practice of law in Ohio. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the board member.
{¶ 5} Having reviewed the record, 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.
__________________
James F. Brockman and Robert F. Laufman, for relator.
__________________
2