Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Clovis

Citation: 2010-Ohio-1859

Docket Number: 20092260

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-05-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Clovis, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1859.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-1859 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. CLOVIS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Clovis,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1859.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Lack of diligence in representing client — Charging 
excessive fee — Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — 
Failure to cooperate with investigation — Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2009-2260 — Submitted February 17, 2010 — Decided May 5, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-045. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Charles Brandt Clovis of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0071950, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in May 
2000.  In June 2009, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging respondent with violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct 
and the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar.  Although the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
complaint was served by certified mail at respondent’s office address on June 16, 
2009, he failed to file an answer.  Therefore, in November 2009, relator moved 
for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). 
{¶ 2} The board referred the matter to a master commissioner, who 
prepared a report for the board’s review.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s findings of fact and his conclusion that respondent had violated 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and four of the Rules of Professional Conduct by accepting a 
$4,000 retainer and failing to perform any work on the client’s behalf and by 
failing to respond to the resulting disciplinary investigation.  Additionally, the 
board accepted the master commissioner’s finding that an alleged violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) should be dismissed for insufficient evidence.  We agree that 
respondent committed professional misconduct as found by the board and that his 
conduct warrants an indefinite suspension. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} In support of its motion for default judgment, relator submitted the 
affidavits and supporting documentation of the complainant, Assistant Bar 
Counsel A. Alysha Clous, and investigator Adam R. Rinehart. 
{¶ 4} The complainant avers that in April 2007, she met with respondent 
to secure legal representation for her husband, who wished to file a clemency 
petition before the Ohio Parole Board.  She executed the flat-rate fee agreement 
prepared by respondent and gave him a cashier’s check for $4,000.  Respondent 
met with the complainant’s husband twice during the summer of 2007 and stated 
that he would file the clemency petition by the end of October 2007.  The 
complainant had difficulty reaching respondent to receive updates on her 
husband’s case and, on the occasions that she did speak with respondent, she 
received nothing but excuses. 
{¶ 5} Respondent did not file any documents with the parole board on 
his client’s behalf.  In August 2008, the complainant informed respondent by 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
letter that if he did not refund her money and return her paperwork by August 15, 
2008, she would file a grievance with relator.  Having received no communication 
from respondent, she filed a grievance with relator on September 9, 2008.  More 
than two years after she first sought respondent’s assistance, the complainant, 
serving as her husband’s attorney-in-fact, prepared and filed the clemency 
petition.  As of October 20, 2009, respondent had neither returned the documents 
nor refunded the money. 
{¶ 6} The board determined, and we agree, that clear and convincing 
evidence demonstrates that respondent violated (1) Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (a lawyer 
shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), (2) 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) (a lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect 
an illegal or clearly excessive fee), (3) Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (no lawyer shall 
engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law).  The board determined, and we agree, however, that the record does 
not contain sufficient evidence to support a finding that respondent violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (forbidding conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation).  See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1)(b) (requiring “[s]worn or certified 
documentary prima facie evidence” in support of a motion for default); Dayton 
Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 104 Ohio St.3d 448, 2004-Ohio-6560, 820 N.E.2d 318.  
Therefore, we dismiss the allegation that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c). 
Failure to Cooperate 
{¶ 7} In September 2008, relator sent respondent two separate letters 
requesting his written response to the grievance, but respondent never 
acknowledged the letter or provided a written response.  Relator also attempted to 
contact respondent by telephone to discuss the grievance.  When respondent did 
not answer, a member of relator’s grievance committee left voicemail messages, 
but respondent did not return the calls.  The committee member followed up with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
a letter to respondent, requesting a response to the letters and telephone calls, but 
he never heard from respondent. 
{¶ 8} In May 2009, relator sent a notice of intent to file a formal 
complaint against respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(4)(I)(2).  Again, 
respondent failed to acknowledge relator’s correspondence.  Finally, on June 15, 
2009, relator filed its complaint against respondent.  Although the complaint was 
served by certified mail on June 16, 2009, and signed for by Krista O’Neill, 
respondent did not file an answer. 
{¶ 9} Therefore, the board found, and we agree, that respondent violated 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in an 
investigation or hearing) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (no attorney shall fail to 
disclose a material fact or knowingly fail to respond to a demand for information 
from a disciplinary authority). 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} 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 Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.   
{¶ 11} The record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that 
respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing 
a client, charged an excessive fee, engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his 
fitness to practice law, failed to respond to a demand for information from a 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
disciplinary authority, and failed to cooperate in the investigation of this 
disciplinary matter. 
{¶ 12} In aggravation, the board found that (1) this court had suspended 
respondent’s license to practice law on November 3, 2009 for failure to register, 
123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256, (2) respondent failed to 
cooperate in the disciplinary process, (3) respondent has not acknowledged the 
wrongful nature of his misconduct, and (4) respondent has not attempted to make 
restitution for the unearned fees charged in this matter.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(a), (e), (g), and (i).  The record contains no evidence of any mitigating 
factors.  Having weighed these factors, the board recommends that we indefinitely 
suspend respondent from the practice of law. 
{¶ 13} We have recognized that “ ‘[a] lawyer’s neglect of legal matters 
and failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation generally warrant 
an indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio.’ ” Cleveland Metro. 
Bar Assn. v. Kaplan, 124 Ohio St.3d 278, 2010-Ohio-167, 921 N.E.2d 645, ¶ 15, 
quoting Akron Bar Assn. v. Goodlet, 115 Ohio St.3d 7, 2007-Ohio-4271, 873 
N.E.2d 815, ¶ 20; see also Disciplinary Counsel v. Gosling, 114 Ohio St.3d 474, 
2007-Ohio-4267, 873 N.E.2d 282, ¶ 12; Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wagner, 113 
Ohio St.3d 158, 2007-Ohio-1253, 863 N.E.2d 164, ¶ 13-14.  We have also 
recognized that “[t]aking retainers and failing to carry out contracts of 
employment is tantamount to theft of the fee from the client.” Cincinnati Bar 
Assn. v. Weaver, 102 Ohio St.3d 264, 2004-Ohio-2683, 809 N.E.2d 1113, ¶ 16.  
And we have imposed an indefinite suspension for such conduct.  See, e.g., 
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Fox, 108 Ohio St.3d 444, 2006-Ohio-1328, 844 N.E.2d 346; 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Tyack, 107 Ohio St.3d 35, 2005-Ohio-5833, 836 N.E.2d 
568. 
{¶ 14} Having weighed respondent’s conduct and the aggravating and 
mitigating factors and having considered the sanctions imposed for comparable 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
conduct, we adopt the board’s recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension.  
Accordingly, Charles Brandt Clovis is indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law in the state of Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
BROWN, C.J., not participating. 
__________________ 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar 
Counsel, for relator. 
______________________