Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Clavner

Citation: 2003-Ohio-2464

Docket Number: 20030380

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Clavner, 99 Ohio St.3d 53, 2003-Ohio-2464.] 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. CLAVNER. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Clavner, 99 Ohio St.3d 53, 2003-Ohio-2464.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Neglect of an 
entrusted legal matter — Failing to seek client’s lawful objectives — 
Failing to carry out contract of employment — Prejudicing or damaging 
client during course of professional relationship — Failing to promptly 
pay money client is entitled to receive — Failing to assist in disciplinary 
investigation. 
(No. 2003-0380 — Submitted April 16, 2003 — Decided May 16, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-12. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Eunice A. Clavner of South Euclid, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0036747, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1986.  
On February 19, 1997, she received a public reprimand for having attempted to 
limit her liability for personal malpractice to a couple while she was still 
representing them.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Clavner (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 431, 
674 N.E.2d 1369.  On April 8, 2002, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed 
another complaint charging respondent with violations of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  Relator was unable to obtain a certified receipt of 
service on respondent and filed notice of the complaint with the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Respondent did not answer, 
and the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline appointed a 
master commissioner to consider the cause on relator’s motion for default. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶2} 
With respect to Count I of the complaint, the master commissioner 
found that a client had retained respondent in May 1998 to represent her in a 
divorce action.  The final divorce decree provided for the client’s receipt of a 
monthly check from her ex-husband’s retirement pension fund pursuant to a 
separately prepared qualified domestic relations order (“QDRO”).  Respondent 
was responsible for preparing the QDRO, but the ex-husband’s employer rejected 
her first draft as not in compliance with applicable requirements.  Respondent 
agreed to redraft the QDRO, but she never resubmitted it to the employer and thus 
did not secure the financial support ordered for her client. 
{¶3} 
After respondent did not reply to the client’s attempts to reach her, 
the client filed a grievance with relator.  In October 2000, relator’s investigator 
contacted respondent by telephone, and she admitted during their conversation 
that she had not completed the QDRO.  Respondent promised to follow up and 
finish the QDRO, but by December 2000, she still had not done so.  As of then, 
respondent’s client had missed at least $4,700 in monthly pension payments that 
she would have been entitled to under the QDRO. 
{¶4} 
With respect to Count II, the master commissioner found that 
another client retained respondent in or around April 1999 to modify a child-
support order.  By June 1999, the client had paid respondent’s $500 fee.  The 
client also gave respondent some of his 1998 tax records and, on her advice, 
waited until September or October 1999 to attempt to file his federal and state 
income tax returns.  After the client paid respondent, he was never able to get in 
touch with her again and ultimately learned that she had moved her office without 
leaving a forwarding address. 
{¶5} 
Respondent did no work for her client and admitted this to relator’s 
investigator.  She also did not refund any of the fees her client had paid and failed 
to return the client’s financial records, making it difficult for him to file his 
January Term, 2003 
3 
returns.  The client obtained a judgment in small claims court against respondent 
that she has not paid. 
{¶6} 
For failing to complete and resubmit the QDRO and then breaking 
her promise to finish this work, the master commissioner found respondent in 
violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation); 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter); 
and 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek client’s lawful objectives), (2) (failing to carry 
out a contract of employment), and (3) (causing client damage or prejudice).  On 
Count II, the master commissioner found that respondent had violated DR 6-
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1) through (3), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay 
money a client is entitled to receive).  Because respondent apparently received but 
did not respond to most of relator’s investigative inquiries in connection with 
these two grievances, the master commissioner also found respondent in violation 
of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
{¶7} 
In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the master 
commissioner considered that while respondent may have suffered from 
depression and anxiety disorders, she did not show evidence of a causal 
connection between her medical condition and her misconduct.  The master 
commissioner also considered as aggravating factors that respondent had already 
been publicly reprimanded for ethics violations, her misconduct involved 
dishonesty, she had not cooperated in the disciplinary investigation and 
proceedings, and she had not refunded unearned fees paid to her. 
{¶8} 
The master commissioner recommended that respondent’s license 
to practice law be suspended indefinitely.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s findings of misconduct and his recommendation. 
{¶9} 
We agree with the findings that respondent violated DR 1-
102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1) through (3), and 9-102(B)(4), and Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G).  We also agree that an indefinite suspension is appropriate.  Neglect 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
of legal matters, dishonesty, and lack of cooperation warrant an indefinite 
suspension.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Washington, 97 Ohio St.3d 483, 2002-Ohio-
6723, 780 N.E.2d 571. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended indefinitely 
from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG 
STRATTON and O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Denise Platfoot, for relator. 
__________________