Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Watson

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as

Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Watson, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2212.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before

the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2022-OHIO-2212

CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. WATSON.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it

may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Watson, Slip Opinion No.

2022-Ohio-2212.]

Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—One-

year suspension, stayed in its entirety on conditions.

(No. 2022-0152—Submitted March 8, 2022—Decided June 30, 2022.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct

of the Supreme Court, No. 2021-016.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Myron Parnell Watson, of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0058583, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1992.

{¶ 2} In an eight-count June 2021 complaint, relator, Cleveland

Metropolitan Bar Association, alleged that Watson had committed 23 ethical

violations in his representation of seven personal-injury clients. Among other

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

things, relator alleged that Watson had neglected several client matters, failed to

reasonably communicate with some of the clients, failed to prepare closing

statements in two contingent-fee cases, failed to promptly pay his clients’ medical

bills out of their settlement proceeds, and failed to maintain required client-trust-

account records. Watson admitted to 16 of the alleged rule violations in his answer

to the complaint. The parties later entered into comprehensive stipulations in which

Watson again admitted to those rule violations and relator agreed to dismiss seven

others, including all of Count Seven. The parties submitted 20 stipulated exhibits,

stipulated to aggravating and mitigating factors, and jointly recommended that this

court impose a one-year conditionally stayed suspension for Watson’s misconduct.

{¶ 3} The matter proceeded to a hearing before a three-member panel of the

Board of Professional Conduct, at which Watson was the sole witness. The panel

found that Watson had engaged in the stipulated misconduct and, based on the

stipulated aggravating and mitigating factors and the additional aggravating factor

that Watson had committed multiple violations, Watson’s testimony, and this

court’s precedent, the panel recommended that Watson be suspended from the

practice of law for one year, with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions

proposed by the parties. The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions

of law, and recommended sanction. We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct

and recommended sanction.

Misconduct

Counts One and Six: The Horton and Brown Matters

{¶ 4} In November 2016, Yolanda Horton retained Watson to represent her

in a personal-injury matter, and Horton and Watson executed a contingent-fee

agreement. To secure the costs of Horton’s related medical treatment, Horton and

Watson also signed a letter of protection granting Chagrin Medical Center a lien

against the proceeds of any settlement or trial disposition in Horton’s personal-

injury case.

2

January Term, 2022

{¶ 5} In January 2018, Watson settled Horton’s case for $10,000. He did

not prepare a closing statement detailing the distribution of those proceeds, nor did

he timely satisfy Chagrin Medical Center’s $3,353 lien against the proceeds. In

addition, Watson has stipulated that he failed to promptly satisfy a similar lien

relating to medical services provided to another client, Reginald Brown.

{¶ 6} The board found that Watson violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(c)(2)

(requiring a lawyer entitled to compensation under a contingent-fee agreement to

prepare a closing statement to be signed by the lawyer and the client that details the

calculation of the lawyer’s compensation and any costs and expenses deducted from

the judgment or settlement) in the Horton matter and that he violated Prof.Cond.R.

1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that a client

or a third party is entitled to receive) in both the Horton and Brown matters. We

adopt these findings of misconduct.

Counts Two through Five: The Middlebrooks and Williams Matters

{¶ 7} At various times in 2016 and 2017, Watson agreed to represent four

other clients in personal-injury matters. He has admitted that he failed to act with

reasonable diligence on behalf of those clients and that he failed to reasonably

communicate with them.

{¶ 8} One of the clients, Trudie Middlebrooks, had had frequent

conversations with Watson’s staff, who assured her that Watson was working on

her case, but those communications diminished over time to the point that she “gave

up” on the matter. The insurance company involved in that matter denied Trudie’s

claim, stating that it was not liable for her injury. Watson failed to file a lawsuit on

Trudie’s behalf before the statute of limitations on her claim elapsed, and he did

not tell her that he was no longer working on her case.

{¶ 9} Although Watson filed complaints on behalf of two of the other

clients, Trudi-Faith and Shafonte Middlebrooks, those cases were dismissed for

failure of service and Watson did not refile them. He also did not inform Trudi-

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Faith and Shafonte that their cases had been dismissed until after their claims were

time-barred and relator had commenced its investigation into his misconduct. In

November 2020, he paid each of them $2,500.

{¶ 10} Watson rejected a $5,000 settlement offer on behalf of another client,

Tiffane Williams, but he never filed a lawsuit on her behalf. In December 2019, he

informed Williams that the statute of limitations on her claims had elapsed, and he

paid her $5,000.

{¶ 11} The parties stipulated and the board found that Watson’s conduct

with respect to each of these four clients violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a

lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client) and 1.4(a)(3)

(requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the

client’s matter), and that his conduct with respect to each of the Middlebrooks

clients also violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to reasonably

consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be

accomplished). We adopt these findings of misconduct.

Count Eight: Client-Trust-Account Records

{¶ 12} Watson has admitted that he failed to maintain proper client-trust-

account records for each client and that he failed to perform monthly reconciliations

of his client trust account. He admitted and the board found that this conduct

violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for each

client that sets forth the name of the client, the date, amount, and source of all funds

received on behalf of the client, and the current balance for each client) and

1.15(a)(5) (requiring a lawyer to perform and retain a monthly reconciliation of the

funds held in the lawyer’s client trust account). We adopt these findings of

misconduct.

Sanction

{¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all

relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the attorney violated, the

4

January Term, 2022

aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions

imposed in similar cases.

{¶ 14} Just two aggravating factors are present—Watson engaged in a

pattern of misconduct and committed multiple offenses. See Gov.Bar R.

V(13)(B)(3) and (4).

{¶ 15} As for mitigating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found

that Watson has no prior disciplinary record, did not act with a dishonest or selfish

motive, made a timely, good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify the

consequences of his misconduct, cooperated in relator’s investigation, and

submitted evidence of his good character and reputation. See Gov.Bar R.

V(13)(C)(1) through (5). The board emphasized that Watson was very cooperative

during the disciplinary process, accepted responsibility for his misconduct, and

exhibited an open, sincere, and contrite attitude. Watson explained during his

hearing testimony that when he expanded his primarily criminal-law practice to

include personal-injury practice, he did not establish the procedures necessary to

ensure proper and timely representation of all his clients. He stated that he had

made staffing and office-procedure changes to prevent these issues from

reoccurring and to ensure that he provides competent and ethical representation to

his civil-law clients going forward. The board found Watson’s testimony to be

sincere and persuasive and noted that Watson had “submitted very strong letters of

support attesting to his good character and reputation.”

{¶ 16} In addition, Watson paid Chagrin Medical Center $28,632 to honor

the letters of protection that he had issued with respect to each of the clients

involved in this case and two others—including clients for whom there was no

financial recovery due to his own neglect.

{¶ 17} The board adopted the parties’ joint recommendation that Watson be

suspended from the practice of law for one year, with the entire suspension stayed

on the conditions that he (1) complete six hours of continuing legal education

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

(“CLE”) focused on law-office and client-trust-account management, in addition to

the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, (2) serve a one-year term of monitored probation

in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21), and (3) commit no further misconduct.

{¶ 18} In support of that recommendation, the board relied primarily on this

court’s decision in Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Rosett, 154 Ohio St.3d 117, 2018-

Ohio-3861, 111 N.E.3d 1166. Rosett had neglected five separate client matters,

failed to maintain required client-trust-account records, and failed to adequately

protect client funds held in her client trust account. Id. at ¶ 17. As for aggravating

factors, she had a prior brief attorney-registration suspension and committed

multiple offenses. Id. at ¶ 2, 13. Mitigating factors included the absence of a

dishonest or selfish motive, Rosett’s timely, good-faith efforts to rectify the

consequences of her misconduct, and evidence of her good character. Id. at ¶ 13.

We suspended her from the practice of law for one year and stayed the suspension

in its entirety on conditions almost identical to those recommended here. Id. at

¶ 17.

{¶ 19} The board also found that its recommended sanction was consistent

with the sanction we imposed for similar misconduct in five other cases. For

example, in Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Yakubek, 142 Ohio St.3d 455, 2015-Ohio-

1570, 32 N.E.3d 440, ¶ 2, 15-16, we imposed a conditionally stayed one-year

suspension on an attorney who had engaged in a pattern of neglect regarding four

separate client matters, failed to reasonably communicate with those clients, and

failed to return two unearned fees until after those clients had filed grievances

against her. And in Disciplinary Counsel v. Peters, 158 Ohio St.3d 360, 2019-

Ohio-5219, 142 N.E.3d 672, ¶ 20-21, we imposed a conditionally stayed one-year

suspension on an attorney who had neglected and provided incompetent

representation to two separate clients. Peters missed the statute of limitations for

the client’s claims in one of those cases but agreed to make restitution equal to the

client’s damages, id. at ¶ 6-7, 15—though in contrast to Watson, Peters had not

6

January Term, 2022

made the payment by the time of his disciplinary hearing, see id. at ¶ 5. Peters also

failed to notify one of the affected clients that he had received funds belonging to

the client, failed to deposit those funds into his client trust account, and failed to

reasonably communicate with that client. Id. at ¶ 20. We suspended Yakubek and

Peters for one year but stayed the suspensions in their entirety on conditions

comparable to those recommended by the board in this case.

{¶ 20} After reviewing the record in this case and our precedent, we agree

that a one-year suspension, stayed in its entirety on the conditions recommended

by the board, is the appropriate sanction for Watson’s misconduct.

{¶ 21} Accordingly, Myron Parnell Watson is suspended from the practice

of law in Ohio for one year, stayed in its entirety on the conditions that he (1)

complete six hours of CLE focused on law-office and client-trust-account

management, in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, (2) serve a one-year

term of monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(21), with the monitoring

focused on law-office and client-trust-account management, and (3) commit no

further misconduct. If Watson fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the

stay will be lifted and he will serve the entire one-year suspension. Costs are taxed

to Watson.

Judgment accordingly.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, STEWART, and

BRUNNER, JJ., concur.

DONNELLY, J., not participating.

_________________

Christopher J. Klasa, Bar Counsel, for relator.

Donald C. Williams, for respondent.

_________________

7