Case Title: Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Watkins

Citation: 2001-Ohio-6976

Docket Number: 20011206

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Watkins, 94 Ohio St.3d 14, 2001-Ohio-6976.] 
 
 
STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. WATKINS. 
[Cite as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Watkins (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 14.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Handling a 
legal matter not competent to handle — Handling a legal matter without 
adequate preparation — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Failing 
to seek the lawful objectives of a client — Neglecting or refusing to assist 
or testify in a disciplinary investigation or hearing. 
(No. 01-1206 — Submitted August 28, 2001 — Decided December 19, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-24. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  From September 1997 through the spring of 1998, 
respondent, Timothy W. Watkins of North Canton, Ohio, Attorney Registration 
No. 0041271, received retainers from clients in six separate matters and failed to 
take action on their behalf.  In September 1997, Jacqueline Cassel retained 
respondent to collect back rent from an original lessor and from a sublessor who 
was occupying a residence owned by her.  Thereafter, respondent did not reply to 
Cassel’s attempts to contact him and did not return her files.  In October 1997, 
Jennifer R. Greene retained respondent for representation in a medical 
malpractice action.  Afterwards, Greene could not contact respondent. 
 
Also in 1997, after respondent attended a hearing in a divorce action on 
behalf of Teresa A. Day, in which she was awarded one-half of her ex-husband’s 
stock option plan, he failed to prepare a follow-up Qualified Domestic Relations 
Order or return Day’s phone calls. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Dena Metz paid respondent a $500 retainer in September 1997 to 
represent her in a divorce case.  Although he appeared at the initial hearing, 
respondent failed to keep in contact with Metz, did not appear at a scheduled 
hearing, and did not acknowledge Metz’s termination letter to him.  He also failed 
to advise Metz of a show cause hearing for her failure to cooperate with discovery 
requests, which respondent had not forwarded to her.  As a result of her failure to 
appear, the court issued a warrant for Metz’s arrest.  Ultimately, Metz retained 
another attorney to complete her divorce proceeding, and respondent never 
refunded the retainer that she had paid to him. 
 
In the spring of 1998, William Welker retained respondent to represent 
him in a breach of contract action.  On April 30, 1998, respondent dismissed the 
case without prejudice.  Throughout the remainder of 1998 and the first part of 
1999, Welker could not contact respondent. 
 
After Jennifer R. Greene complained to the Stark County Bar Association, 
relator herein, that respondent had in January 1998 voluntarily dismissed without 
prejudice a malpractice action that he had filed for Greene and had refused to 
contact her, respondent refiled the action against the three defendants.  However, 
the court issued summary judgment in favor of two defendants when respondent 
failed to respond to those defendants’ motion.  Respondent dismissed the action 
against the other defendant without prejudice.  He did not advise Greene of either 
the granting of the summary judgment or the dismissal. 
 
Based on grievances filed by these clients, relator filed a complaint 
charging respondent with violating numerous provisions of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  Respondent answered, and the matter was heard by a 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”).  
After a hearing during which the panel accepted stipulations and exhibits, the 
panel found the facts as set forth above.  Respondent submitted no evidence of 
mitigation.  Based on these facts, the panel concluded that respondent’s conduct 
January Term, 2001 
3 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 6-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not 
handle a legal matter which he is not competent to handle), 6-101(A)(2) (a lawyer 
shall not attempt to handle a legal matter without preparation adequate in the 
circumstances), 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), 
and 7-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not intentionally fail to seek the lawful objectives 
of a client).  The panel also concluded that in not responding fully and promptly 
to relator’s inquiries regarding these matters, respondent violated Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in a disciplinary 
investigation or hearing). 
 
The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
 
Upon review, 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. 
__________________ 
 
Timothy B. Saylor, Richard S. Milligan and John R. Giua, for relator. 
 
Timothy W. Watkins, pro se. 
__________________