Case Title: Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Weir

Citation: 2020-Ohio-3324

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-06-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Weir, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3324.] 
 
 
 
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. 2020-OHIO-3324 
LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. WEIR. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Weir, Slip Opinion No.  
2020-Ohio-3324.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the 
Rules for the Government of the Bar—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2019-0150—Submitted April 8, 2020—Decided June 17, 2020.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2018-069. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jeffrey Hile Weir II, of Lorain, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0067470, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997. 
{¶ 2} In 2005, we briefly suspended Weir’s license based on his failure to 
timely register for the 2005-2007 biennium.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
of Weir, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671, reinstatement 
granted, 107 Ohio St.3d 1705, 2006-Ohio-13, 840 N.E.2d 209. 
{¶ 3} On June 5, 2019, we suspended his license for one year, with the final 
six months stayed on conditions, for misconduct that included losing a client’s 
settlement check, failing to reasonably communicate with the client, failing to 
cooperate in the disciplinary investigation, and failing to provide competent 
representation in a different client matter.  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Weir, 156 Ohio 
St.3d 566, 2019-Ohio-2151, 130 N.E.3d 275.  We later found him in contempt 
because he had not timely complied with our disciplinary order.  156 Ohio St.3d 
1481, 2019-Ohio-3171, 129 N.E.3d 447. 
{¶ 4} In December 2018—while Weir’s prior disciplinary case was pending 
in this court—relator, Lorain County Bar Association, charged Weir with 
professional misconduct in three additional client matters.  Weir failed to answer 
the complaint, and on March 1, 2019, we imposed an interim default suspension 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(14)(B)(1).  156 Ohio St.3d 1252, 2019-Ohio-728, 125 
N.E.3d 976.  Weir moved for leave to answer relator’s complaint, and on May 28, 
2019, we granted his motion and remanded the case to the Board of Professional 
Conduct, although we kept his interim default suspension in place.  155 Ohio St.3d 
1466, 2019-Ohio-2057, 122 N.E.3d 1289. 
{¶ 5} In August 2019, relator amended its complaint to include allegations 
asserted in two new grievances, although relator subsequently voluntarily 
dismissed the allegations relating to one of those grievances.  The matter proceeded 
to a hearing before a three-member panel of the board at which Weir and five 
grievants testified.  Based on the hearing evidence, the board issued a report finding 
that Weir engaged in the charged misconduct and recommending that we 
indefinitely suspend him from the practice of law, with no credit for the time he has 
served under his interim default suspension, and order that he pay restitution to a 
former client.  Neither party filed objections to the board’s report. 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
{¶ 6} Based on our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings and 
recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 7} The board found that Weir committed similar professional 
misconduct in four client matters.  Primarily, he neglected those clients and then 
failed to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigations.  His handling of 
Sunseraray Gilmore’s matter is a representative example of his misconduct. 
{¶ 8} In late 2017, Gilmore paid Weir $500 to file documents for her 
grandmother’s estate and prepare an agreement transferring her grandmother’s 
home to Gilmore’s cousin Ronald Johnson.  From February through June 2018, 
Gilmore sent Weir multiple e-mails requesting an update, but Weir failed to reply. 
{¶ 9} By June 2018, after Weir had failed to take any action on Gilmore’s 
request to transfer her grandmother’s home, Gilmore abandoned that idea and 
focused on probating the will.  The following month, Weir communicated with 
Gilmore about some research he had conducted on her grandmother’s property.  But 
for several months thereafter, Gilmore did not hear from him.  In December 2018 
and January 2019, she sent him multiple unanswered e-mails requesting that he 
move forward with filing the estate and update her when he had done so. 
{¶ 10} In mid-February 2019, Weir e-mailed Gilmore two questions 
relating to the estate and Gilmore responded 30 minutes later.  At that point, Weir 
admittedly had sufficient information to file the estate.  On May 3, 2019, Gilmore 
sent Weir another unanswered e-mail requesting an update on the matter.  Six days 
later, she sent him an e-mail stating that unless he filed the estate or returned her 
documents and $500 within 30 days, she would file a grievance against him.  
Thirty-one days later, Weir advised Gilmore that his license had been suspended 
and he was therefore unable to continue the representation.  He also claimed that 
his legal services had exceeded her initial $500 payment but offered to refund half 
of that payment to resolve the matter. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 11} Gilmore then discovered that we had imposed Weir’s interim default 
suspension several months earlier—on March 1—although Weir had failed to 
notify her.  She again requested the return of her file.  But by that point, Weir could 
not locate the documents Gilmore had given him, including her grandmother’s 
original will.  He never probated the estate or refunded any portion of Gilmore’s 
fee.  And after Gilmore filed a grievance, Weir failed to submit a formal response 
to relator. 
{¶ 12} Based on this conduct, the board found that Weir 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 a 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 a client), 
1.4(a)(5) (requiring a lawyer to consult with a client about any relevant limitation 
on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance 
not permitted), 1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver client papers and 
property upon termination of a representation), and 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) 
(both requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation).  In addition, 
because Gilmore had agreed that Weir should refund half of her initial payment to 
either her or Johnson, the board concluded that Weir owes Gilmore or Johnson 
restitution in the amount of $250. 
{¶ 13} As noted above, the board found that Weir committed similar 
misconduct in three other client matters.  In one matter, he failed to attend the 
client’s citation hearing in an estate case, failed to communicate with the client in 
advance of the hearing, and failed to return the client’s phone calls, resulting in 
additional violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and 1.4(a)(4).  Weir violated 
the same rules in the second matter by failing to file an important document in a 
client’s bankruptcy case and then failing to respond to the client’s attempts to reach 
him.  And in the third matter, he failed to reasonably communicate with his clients 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
regarding their civil case, failed to properly explain discovery filings and the 
consequences of a voluntary dismissal, and upon termination of the representation, 
failed to return their file, resulting in violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a) (requiring a 
lawyer to reasonably communicate with a client), 1.4(b) (requiring a lawyer to 
explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make 
informed decisions regarding the representation), and 1.16(d).  In each of those 
matters, Weir also violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) by failing 
to cooperate in relator’s investigation of the grievances filed by his former clients. 
{¶ 14} Finally, at this disciplinary hearing, Weir acknowledged that he had 
failed to properly notify clients that he lacked malpractice insurance.  The board 
therefore found four violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform 
a client if the lawyer does not maintain professional-liability insurance and obtain 
a signed acknowledgment of that notice from the client). 
{¶ 15} We agree with the board’s findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 16} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 17} As aggravating factors, the board found that Weir has prior 
discipline and had engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple 
offenses, and failed to cooperate in relator’s disciplinary investigations.  See 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1), (3), (4), and (5).  The board also noted that Weir had 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  Specifically, two months after we 
imposed his interim default suspension, Weir sent a letter under the letterhead 
“JEFFREY H. WEIR, ESQ.” to the owners of vacant property in Lorain.  Weir 
indicated that he represented a “client” who was offering to purchase the property, 
and Weir sent a proposed quit-claim deed, which the property owners returned.  At 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
his disciplinary hearing, Weir admitted that his preparation of the quit-claim deed 
constituted the practice of law.  He also acknowledged that a recipient of his letter 
might have perceived “ESQ.” to mean that he was a licensed attorney.  He has since 
removed the title from his letterhead.  See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wiest, 148 Ohio 
St.3d 683, 2016-Ohio-8166, 72 N.E.3d 621, ¶ 13-16, 37 (considering uncharged 
misconduct only as an aggravating factor). 
{¶ 18} As for mitigating factors, the board found that Weir had lacked a 
dishonest or selfish motive and that in contrast to his refusal to participate in 
relator’s investigations, Weir had displayed a cooperative attitude during his 
disciplinary hearing and acknowledged some of his misconduct.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(2) and (4).  Although the board found—and we agree—that Weir did not 
establish the existence of a qualifying mental disorder under Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(7), the board noted that Weir had entered into a contract with the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) to address mental-health issues. 
{¶ 19} The board recommends that we impose an indefinite suspension with 
no credit for the time Weir has served under his interim default suspension, order 
him to make restitution to Gilmore or Johnson, and place conditions on his 
reinstatement.  In support of its recommended sanction, the board cites our “general 
rule that ‘an attorney’s neglect of legal matters and failure to cooperate in the 
ensuing disciplinary investigation warrant an indefinite suspension,’ ” Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Delay, 157 Ohio St.3d 137, 2019-Ohio-2955, 132 N.E.3d 680, ¶ 38, 
quoting Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365, 2007-Ohio-2076, 
865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 19.  “We have found that sanction to be appropriate even when 
an attorney has engaged in additional acts of misconduct.”  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. 
v. Johnson, 151 Ohio St.3d 448, 2017-Ohio-6889, 90 N.E.3d 837, ¶ 39. 
{¶ 20} Here, in addition to engaging in a pattern of neglect and 
noncooperation that led to two disciplinary cases, Weir failed to return his clients’ 
property upon termination of his representation and failed to properly notify clients 
January Term, 2020 
 
7
that he lacked malpractice insurance.  In light of his misconduct and the other 
aggravating factors present in this case, we find no reason to deviate from our 
general rule.  Nor do we see any compelling reason to award him credit for the time 
he has served under his interim default suspension.  We therefore adopt the board’s 
recommended sanction.  See id. at ¶ 40-41 (indefinitely suspending an attorney, 
with no credit for time served under an interim default suspension, for engaging in 
a pattern of neglect and noncooperation and committing other professional 
misconduct, including failing to return clients’ unearned fees and failing to properly 
notify clients that he lacked malpractice insurance). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 21} For the reasons explained above, Jeffrey Hile Weir II is indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio with no credit for the time he has served 
under the interim default suspension we imposed on March 1, 2019.  Within 60 
days of our disciplinary order, Weir shall submit proof to relator that he has made 
restitution in the amount of $250 to Sunseraray Gilmore or Ronald Johnson.  In 
addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(25), Weir’s reinstatement shall be 
subject to the requirements that he provide (1) proof of compliance with his OLAP 
contract, (2) proof that he followed any treatment or counseling recommendations 
made by a qualified healthcare professional, and (3) an opinion from a qualified 
healthcare professional that he is capable of returning to the competent, ethical, and 
professional practice of law.  Costs are taxed to Weir. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
O’Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora Co., L.P.A., and Matthew A. 
Dooley; and Wickens, Herzer, Panza, Daniel A. Cook, and Malorie A. Alverson, 
for relator. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
Jeffrey H. Weir II, pro se. 
_________________