Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Forg

Citation: 2002-Ohio-6727

Docket Number: 20021463

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-12-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Forg, 97 Ohio St.3d 495, 2002-Ohio-6727.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. FORG. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Forg, 97 Ohio St.3d 495, 2002-Ohio-6727.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with six months of 
suspension stayed on condition — Engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Neglect of an entrusted 
legal matter — Failing to maintain client’s funds in an identifiable bank 
account separate from attorney’s funds and using the funds for 
attorney’s own purposes — Failing to render an appropriate account of 
client’s funds — Failing to promptly pay or deliver to client funds or 
other property in attorney’s possession that client is entitled to receive. 
(No. 2002-1463 — Submitted October 15, 2002 — Decided December 18, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-97. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In this case, we sanction an attorney who seriously neglected a 
client’s case, used her client’s funds as her own, did not communicate with her 
client, and failed to return the client’s case file or funds on request.  The Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found that respondent, E. Farran 
Forg, also known as Elizabeth Farran Forg, of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0061123, committed these acts and thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation); DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter); DR 9-
102(A) (failing to maintain the client’s funds in an identifiable bank account 
separate from the lawyer’s funds and using the funds for the lawyer’s own 
purposes); DR 9-102(B)(3) (failing to render an appropriate account regarding a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
client’s funds); and DR 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay or deliver to the 
client, as requested, funds or other property in the possession of the lawyer that 
the client is entitled to receive).  The board recommended that respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year with six months of the 
suspension stayed.  We agree that the recommended sanction is appropriate. 
{¶2} 
In March 2001, respondent’s client retained respondent to 
represent her in a dissolution of marriage and paid respondent a retainer of $1,000 
and court filing fees of $250.  Respondent initially deposited the funds in her 
client trust account, but used the funds for her own purposes, including an April 
16, 2001 payment of $500 to the United States Treasury. 
{¶3} 
In May, June, and July, respondent’s client telephoned about her 
case, but respondent did not return the calls.  Her client also sent letters to 
respondent in May and June 2001, but respondent did not reply to these letters.  
Moreover, on July 3, 2001, counsel for her client’s husband sent respondent a 
settlement proposal and a related actuarial report, but she failed to send either the 
report or the settlement offer to her client.  Shortly thereafter, respondent’s client 
sent respondent a certified letter that detailed respondent’s failure to 
communicate, asked for a response, and requested that the retainer and filing fee 
be returned.  Respondent failed either to respond or return her client’s funds. 
{¶4} 
On July 23, respondent’s client notified respondent, via a certified 
letter, that she had discharged respondent.  Her client also requested an itemized 
statement of respondent’s time and expenses and a return of her file, the retainer, 
and the filing fee.  On October 15, 2001, after receiving notice of her client’s 
grievance, respondent refunded the retainer and the filing fee.  But respondent did 
not return the case file to her client. 
{¶5} 
Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint on 
December 10, 2001, charging respondent with violations of the Code of 
January Term, 2002 
3 
Professional Responsibility.  Respondent was served with the complaint but did 
not answer, and relator filed a motion for default. 
{¶6} 
A master commissioner assigned by the board reviewed the 
evidence, found the facts as stated, and concluded that respondent had violated the 
cited Disciplinary Rules.  In recommending a sanction, the master commissioner 
found no aggravating factors and considered as mitigating the fact that respondent 
had refunded $1,250 to her client after her client had contacted relator.  The 
master commissioner recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of 
law with six months of the suspension stayed.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
{¶7} 
We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3), 
9-102(A), 9-102(B)(3), and 9-102(B)(4).  In view of respondent’s return of all 
fees to her client and the fact that this is a single incident of misconduct, we also 
agree with the board’s recommendation that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for one year with six months of the suspension stayed.  
Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 
one year, but six months of that suspension are stayed on the condition that she 
commit no further violations of the Disciplinary Rules.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Beth Silverman and David Wagner, for relator. 
__________________