Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Ford

Citation: 2012-Ohio-3915

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-09-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Ford, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3915.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-3915 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FORD. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Ford,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3915.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing 
a client and failing to keep a client reasonably informed of the status of a 
matter—Failing to cooperate with a disciplinary matter—Two-year 
suspension, six months stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2011-2042—Submitted January 18, 2012—Decided September 5, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-061. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, George Cook Ford III of Norwalk, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0011982, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1977. 
{¶ 2} On May 26, 2011, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a three-count 
complaint alleging that Ford had neglected one client’s legal matter, failed to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
provide competent representation to a second client, charged the second client an 
illegal or clearly excessive fee, failed to reasonably communicate with both 
clients, and failed to cooperate with the resulting disciplinary investigations, and 
that this conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice.  Although the 
Board of Commissioners served the complaint by certified mail at the address on 
file with the Office of Attorney Services, Ford did not file an answer.  
Consequently, relator moved the board for default judgment. 
{¶ 3} The board appointed a master commissioner who granted the 
default motion and found that relator had proven all but one of the allegations in 
his complaint by clear and convincing evidence.  Having considered the findings 
of misconduct, the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, and this court’s 
precedent, the master commissioner adopted relator’s proposed sanction—a two-
year suspension, with six months stayed on the condition that Ford make 
restitution to the two affected clients. 
{¶ 4} The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact and 
misconduct and its recommended sanction.  We adopt the board’s findings of fact 
and misconduct and suspend Ford for two years, with six months stayed on the 
conditions that he make restitution to the individuals who paid his clients’ fees 
and that he commit no further misconduct. 
Misconduct 
Count One—Ellie Justice 
{¶ 5} Ellie Justice retained Ford in December 2005 to handle her 
divorce.  The divorce became final on June 29, 2007.  The magistrate’s decision 
and agreed judgment entry, which was signed by the judge, specified that 
Justice’s ex-husband was to receive the jointly owned real property and that 
Justice was to receive approximately $90,000 from her ex-husband’s stock 
ownership and pension plans.  Pursuant to the agreed entry, Justice was to prepare 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
and submit a qualified domestic-relations order (“QDRO”) to effectuate the 
division of the stock ownership and pension plans. 
{¶ 6} Justice signed a quitclaim deed to transfer the real property to her 
ex-husband during the summer of 2007, but Ford did not forward the executed 
quitclaim deed to the ex-husband’s counsel.  Nor did he respond to counsel’s 
multiple requests for the deed or his inquiries about the QDRO.  Consequently, on 
July 28, 2008, the ex-husband’s counsel moved the court for an entry to convey 
the real property, and the court granted the motion the same day. 
{¶ 7} On January 14, 2009—nearly 19 months after the divorce became 
final—Ford wrote to the ex-husband’s counsel to inform him that he was 
completing the QDRO.  Shortly thereafter, Justice’s friend, Sharleen Williams, 
paid Ford $400 to prepare the QDRO.  Ford forwarded the money to QDRO 
Consultants, and the completed document was sent to Ford on April 14, 2009. 
{¶ 8} Justice called Ford more than 50 times to discuss the status of the 
settlement and QDRO during the three years following her divorce.  On the rare 
occasions when she was able to speak with Ford, he advised her that he was 
working on her case or that he would call her back, which he never did.  In March 
2010, Justice sent letters to Ford and the judge presiding over her divorce to 
complain about Ford’s lack of communication and failure to complete her 
representation.  Although the judge sent Ford a letter instructing him to contact 
Justice and to take care of the outstanding QDRO, as of the date the motion for 
default judgment was filed, Ford had not filed the QDRO. 
{¶ 9} The master commissioner and board found that Ford’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as 
soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client), and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice).  We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Count Two—Darryl Moore 
{¶ 10} In August 2007, Darryl Moore was indicted on ten federal criminal 
charges including conspiracy, money laundering, mortgage fraud, and wire fraud.  
He later pleaded guilty to five of the charges, and the government dismissed the 
other five counts.  In July 2008, he was sentenced to 53 months in prison and was 
sent to the Elkton Federal Correctional Institution in Columbiana County, Ohio. 
{¶ 11} Ford’s former assistant, Thomas Root, was also incarcerated at 
Elkton and referred Moore to Ford for legal assistance.  In May 2009, Ford agreed 
to represent Moore for a flat fee of $5,000.  Based upon Moore’s affidavit, the 
master commissioner and board found that Moore’s friend, Claude Carson, paid 
respondent at least $3,250 on Moore’s behalf.  We find, however, that in an 
August 4, 2010 letter to Moore, Ford admitted that he received $3,500 from 
Carson. 
{¶ 12} On June 26, 2009, Moore wrote a letter to Ford setting forth his 
understanding that Ford would file a motion to vacate, correct, or set aside his 
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255.  Moore noted that there are strict deadlines 
for filing such motions and implied that his deadline would fall on or about July 
21, 2009.  When he did not hear from Ford by July 20, 2009, he filed a pro se 
motion to vacate his sentence, but the government moved to strike his motion 
because it exceeded the allowable page limit.  Moore opposed the motion to strike 
but also submitted a shortened version of his motion to vacate and sent copies of 
the documents to Ford.  While his response in opposition to the motion to strike 
was filed on August 4, 2009, his revised motion to vacate was never filed and did 
not appear on the docket. 
{¶ 13} The court granted the government’s motion to strike and gave 
Moore until October 19, 2009, to file a conforming motion.  Ford reviewed 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
Moore’s revised motion to vacate and was satisfied that it complied with the 
court’s order, so he did not file a revised motion on Moore’s behalf—even though 
the docket did not show that a revised motion had been filed.  Because a revised 
motion was not filed by the deadline, the court dismissed the action.  Ford later 
moved the court for reconsideration and for relief from judgment, but his motions 
were denied. 
{¶ 14} In April 2010, Moore requested a refund of the fee paid on his 
behalf.  When he did not receive a refund, he sent Ford a letter in July 2010.  Ford 
replied on August 4, 2010, and refused to refund any of the $3,500 that he had 
received on Moore’s behalf. 
{¶ 15} The master commissioner and board found that Ford’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation 
to a client), 1.4(a)(3), and 8.4(d), and the master commissioner dismissed for 
insufficiency of the evidence an alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 (prohibiting 
a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal or 
clearly excessive fee).  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct with 
one exception—because Ford admitted in his letter to Moore that he had received 
$3,500 from Claude Carson, we find that relator has proven payment of that 
amount by clear and convincing evidence. 
Count Three—Failure to Cooperate 
{¶ 16} Upon receipt of grievances from clients Ellie Justice and a second 
client, relator sent Ford two letters of inquiry by certified mail.  Ford signed for 
those letters on May 24, 2010, and called four days before his responses were due 
to request an extension of time to respond.  Relator granted that request, and two 
others, for an extension of time, but Ford failed to respond by the last deadline—
July 2, 2010. 
{¶ 17} On July 8, 2010, Mary Jackson, who identified herself as Ford’s 
assistant at the Huron County Public Defender’s office, called to advise relator 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
that Ford had been hospitalized on July 7, 2010, having suffered from a possible 
stroke.  Relator called Ford during the second week of August 2010 to inquire 
about the grievances.  Ford stated that he had just returned to work on Friday, 
August 6, 2010, and that he was working limited hours until he was fully 
recovered.  Nevertheless, he advised relator that he would respond to the Justice 
and Francis grievances by “a week from next Friday.”  Ford did respond to those 
grievances approximately one month later, but his responses were incomplete. 
{¶ 18} Relator sent Ford additional questions regarding the Justice and 
Francis grievances around the same time that relator received Darryl Moore’s 
grievance.  Ford called in October 2010 to notify relator that he had retained 
counsel to represent him in the disciplinary process.  Ford’s counsel provided 
some additional information in the Justice and Francis matters and an initial 
response to the Moore grievance.  Although relator requested additional 
information and subpoenaed Ford for a deposition, Ford did not appear for the 
deposition and has not provided any additional information. 
{¶ 19} Relator’s investigation revealed that Francis’s grievance did not 
warrant any disciplinary action.  Upon determining that formal disciplinary action 
was warranted in the Justice and Moore matters, relator sent two letters notifying 
Ford of his intention to file a complaint with the board and enclosed a draft 
complaint with each.  Ford did not respond to either letter and, although it was 
served upon him, he has failed to file an answer to the formal complaint. 
{¶ 20} Based upon these facts, the master commissioner and board found 
that Ford violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly 
failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during 
an investigation) and 8.4(d) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to 
cooperate with a disciplinary investigation). 
 
 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
Sanction 
{¶ 21} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 
473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.   
{¶ 22} As aggravating factors in this case, the master commissioner and 
board have found that Ford committed multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in 
the disciplinary process, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his 
conduct, caused harm to vulnerable clients, and failed to make restitution.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d), (e), (g), (h), and (i).  The only mitigating factor that 
they found is the absence of a prior disciplinary record in more than 30 years of 
practice.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). 
{¶ 23} Relator has recommended that Ford be suspended for two years 
with no more than six months of that suspension stayed on the condition that he 
refund $ 400 to Justice and $ 3,500 to Carson. 
{¶ 24} The master commissioner and board acknowledge that we have 
consistently held that neglect of client matters coupled with the failure to 
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation warrants an indefinite 
suspension from the practice of law.  See, e.g., Columbus Bar Assn. v. Torian, 106 
Ohio St.3d 14, 2005-Ohio-3216, 829 N.E.2d 1210, ¶ 17; Akron Bar Assn. v. 
Snyder, 87 Ohio St.3d 211, 212, 718 N.E.2d 1271 (1999); Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Boylan, 85 Ohio St.3d 115, 117, 707 N.E.2d 465 (1999). 
{¶ 25} Citing several cases in which we tempered that presumptive 
sanction, however, the master commissioner and board recommend that we 
suspend Ford for two years, with six months stayed on the condition that he 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
refund $400 to Sharleen Williams, who had made Justice’s fee payment, and 
$3,250 to Claude Carson, who had made Moore’s fee payment.  See Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Hallquist, 128 Ohio St.3d 480, 2011-Ohio-1819, 946 N.E.2d 224, ¶ 8, 
15-16, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Noel, 126 Ohio St.3d 56, 2010-Ohio-2714, 
930 N.E.2d 312, ¶ 26-27 (each imposing a two-year suspension with six months 
stayed for an attorney who had neglected two client matters and failed to 
cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation). 
{¶ 26} Ford has practiced law for more than 30 years without a 
disciplinary violation, and it appears that his violations in this case may be due, at 
least in part, to his recent poor health.  And on March 26, 2012, Ford notified the 
Office of Attorney Services that his license to practice law is currently inactive.  
Having considered Ford’s misconduct, the aggravating and mitigating 
circumstances, and our precedent, we adopt the board’s recommended sanction of 
a two-year suspension with six months stayed on the condition that Ford make 
restitution to Sharleen Williams and Claude Carson.  But because Ford admitted 
that he received $3,500 from Claude Carson, we modify the board’s 
recommendation to require restitution of that amount to Carson. 
{¶ 27} Accordingly, George Cook Ford III is suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for two years from the date of this order, with six months stayed on 
the conditions that he make restitution of $400 to Sharleen Williams and $3,500 
to Claude Carson within 30 days of this order and that he commit no additional 
misconduct.  If Ford fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay will 
be lifted and he will serve the full two-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Ford. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2012 
9 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen H. Osmond, for 
relator. 
______________________