Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Watson

Citation: 2005-Ohio-4983

Docket Number: 20050289

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-10-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Watson, 106 Ohio St.3d 298, 2005-Ohio-4983.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. WATSON. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Watson, 106 Ohio St.3d 298, 2005-Ohio-4983.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Neglecting an entrusted legal matter — Aiding a 
nonlawyer in unauthorized practice of law — Failing to advise clients of 
lack of adequate professional-liability insurance — Six-month suspension, 
stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2005-0289 — Submitted March 30, 2005 — Decided October 5, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-045. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, James E. L. Watson, of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0039585, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1988. 
{¶ 2} On August 9, 2004, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with three counts of professional misconduct.  A 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered 
the case on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, see Section 11 of the 
Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”), 
and made findings of misconduct and a recommendation, which the board 
adopted. 
{¶ 3} In keeping with the parties’ agreement, the panel dismissed Count 
II of the complaint.  We therefore review the board’s findings and 
recommendation regarding the remaining allegations – Counts I and III – of the 
complaint. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 4} By adopting the parties’ agreement in all respects, the board found 
that respondent was bedridden for several months in 2002 and relied during those 
months on a paralegal at his office to help him manage his law practice.  
Respondent instructed that paralegal, William Thomas, to prepare a draft answer, 
counterclaim, and motion for a restraining order for respondent’s client, Richard 
Zahner, in a divorce case and deliver the documents to respondent for his review 
and signature.  Instead, Thomas signed respondent’s name to the pleadings and 
filed them in November 2002 without respondent’s consent.  The motion for a 
restraining order in the case included an affidavit purportedly signed by Zahner 
and notarized by respondent.  Respondent had not in fact seen Zahner sign the 
affidavit and had not notarized the signature.  Thomas had improperly notarized 
the affidavit and signed respondent’s name on it as the notary. 
{¶ 5} In December 2002, Thomas drafted a letter to Zahner and signed 
respondent’s name to it without indicating that respondent himself had not 
written, reviewed, or signed the letter.  Zahner believed that respondent had 
written and signed it. 
{¶ 6} In January 2003, respondent instructed Thomas to prepare written 
objections to a magistrate’s order in Zahner’s case.  Again, Thomas was to deliver 
the draft objections to respondent for his review and signature before they were 
filed.  Thomas did not do so, and respondent never reviewed the objections before 
Thomas signed respondent’s name on the document and filed it with the court. 
{¶ 7} Respondent admitted and the board found that he had violated DR 
3-101(A) (barring an attorney from aiding a nonlawyer in the unauthorized 
practice of law), and 6-101(A)(3) (barring an attorney from neglecting an 
entrusted legal matter). 
 
January Term, 2005 
3 
Count Three 
{¶ 8} While representing Richard Zahner, respondent did not maintain 
professional-liability insurance coverage and did not notify Zahner of that fact. 
{¶ 9} Respondent admitted and the board found that he had thereby 
violated DR 1-104(A) (requiring an attorney who does not maintain adequate 
professional-liability insurance to so advise his or her clients in writing). 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
board considered aggravating and mitigating factors, to which the parties had also 
stipulated.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  No aggravating factors were found in 
connection with respondent’s actions.  Mitigating factors included the absence of 
any prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, a 
timely good-faith effort to make restitution or to rectify the consequences of the 
misconduct, full and free disclosure to the panel and a cooperative attitude during 
the proceedings, and evidence of respondent’s good character and reputation from 
other attorneys.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). 
{¶ 11} The parties jointly suggested that respondent be suspended from 
the practice of law for six months, with all six months stayed, provided that (1) 
respondent refrains from any further misconduct during the six months, (2) 
respondent pays all costs associated with his disciplinary case, and (3) respondent 
reviews and approves all documents prepared by his support staff and ensures that 
all documents are properly signed by him or properly initialed if signed by others 
on his behalf.  The board accepted this recommendation. 
{¶ 12} We agree that respondent violated all of the provisions cited in the 
board’s report, and we also agree that a six-month stayed suspension from the 
practice of law is appropriate.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio for a period of six months, with the entire suspension 
stayed on the condition that he (1) commits no further misconduct during the six 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
months, (2) pays all costs associated with this case in a timely manner, and (3) 
reviews and approves all documents prepared by his support staff and ensures that 
all documents are properly signed by him or properly initialed if signed by others 
on his behalf.  If respondent violates any of these conditions, the stay will be 
lifted, and respondent will serve the entire term of actual suspension.  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Barbara J. Petrella, Bruce A. Campbell, and Jill M. Snitcher McQuain, for 
relator. 
 
Kettlewell & Kettlewell, L.L.C., Charles J. Kettlewell, and Charles W. 
Kettlewell, for respondent. 
______________________