Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Begovic

Citation: 2019-Ohio-4531

Docket Number: 2019-0220

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2019-11-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Begovic, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4531.] 
 
 
 
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. 2019-OHIO-4531 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. BEGOVIC. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Begovic, Slip Opinion No.  
2019-Ohio-4531.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the 
Rules for the Government of the Bar—One-year suspension, with six months 
stayed on conditions—Two years of monitored probation upon 
reinstatement. 
(No. 2019-0220—Submitted March 27, 2019—Decided November 6, 2019.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2018-023. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michael Joseph Begovic, Attorney Registration No. 
0096103, last known address in Cincinnati, Ohio, was admitted to the practice of 
law in Ohio in November 2016. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} In a formal complaint certified to the Board of Professional Conduct 
on May 11, 2018, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged Begovic with 
violating one provision of the Rules for the Government of the Bar and seven 
provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  All the charged misconduct 
relates to Begovic’s association with Rodger W. Moore, Attorney Registration No. 
0074144, from January to May 2017.  During the four months of Begovic’s 
association with Moore, Moore was under suspension from the practice of law, and 
the most serious misconduct charged is that Begovic aided Moore in the 
unauthorized practice of law.1   
{¶ 3} The parties submitted written stipulations of facts and numerous 
exhibits for the board’s consideration.  A three-member panel of the board 
conducted a hearing, at which Begovic testified.  Although Begovic initially 
contested most of the alleged violations, by the end of the hearing, he admitted that 
he had committed all eight alleged violations.  After the hearing, the parties also 
stipulated to certain mitigating factors. 
{¶ 4} Based on the stipulations, the testimony of Begovic both at the hearing 
and at his deposition, and the exhibits, the panel made findings of fact and drew 
conclusions of law.  The panel found that Begovic had failed to register his 
association with Moore—a suspended attorney—with the Office of Disciplinary 
Counsel, aided Moore in the unauthorized practice of law, failed to keep his clients 
reasonably informed, failed to obtain his clients’ informed consent when required, 
failed to make certain required disclosures to his clients, and improperly shared 
                                                 
1.  We originally suspended Moore from the practice of law on June 25, 2015, for a term of two 
years with one year stayed on conditions.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Moore, 143 Ohio St.3d 252, 2015-
Ohio-2488, 36 N.E.3d 171.  Subsequently, on October 29, 2016, we found Moore in contempt for 
continuing to practice law while his license was under suspension; we therefore revoked the stay 
and ordered him to serve the entire two-year suspension.  See 147 Ohio St.3d 1405, 2016-Ohio-
7371, 60 N.E.3d 1269.  Most recently, in the context of a later disciplinary proceeding, we 
permanently disbarred Moore from the practice of law in Ohio effective May 30, 2019.  Cincinnati 
Bar Assn. v. Moore, 157 Ohio St.3d 24, 2019-Ohio-2063, 131 N.E.3d 24. 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
legal fees with a nonlawyer.  The panel then considered multiple mitigating and 
aggravating factors and recommended a one-year suspension with six months 
stayed on conditions and two years of monitored probation after reinstatement. 
{¶ 5} The board adopted the panel’s findings and conclusions and 
recommended sanction, with the additional provision that Begovic should pay the 
costs of these proceedings.  Neither party filed objections to the board’s report. 
{¶ 6} We agree with the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, 
and we adopt the board’s recommended sanction. 
I. MISCONDUCT 
A. Background 
{¶ 7} Shortly after his admission to the practice of law in Ohio, Begovic 
contacted Rodger Moore in response to an advertisement for an entry-level attorney 
posted on a law-school website.  Begovic had two interviews with Moore, and 
during the second interview, Moore told Begovic that he was a suspended attorney 
but that he would be reinstated in June 2017.  Begovic testified that Moore told him 
that because of Moore’s suspended status, Begovic would be “working as a 1099 
contractor for the Moore Business Advisory Group as opposed to working directly 
with [Moore] as an employee or with his firm.”  According to Begovic, Moore told 
him that he had formed the Moore Business Advisory Group after his suspension 
went into effect and that he still had “a good relationship with his clients.” 
{¶ 8} Moore offered Begovic the entry-level-attorney position, and Begovic 
accepted.  The offer was for an annual compensation of $48,000, regardless of his 
workload or success in handling cases.  Additionally, Moore agreed to pay 
Begovic’s Kentucky bar-admission fee and for his malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 9} Moore provided Begovic with an office in Cincinnati.  The signage 
for the office did not say “Moore Business Advisory Group” but rather “Law 
Offices of Andrew Green and Rodger Moore.”  Additionally, Moore provided 
office furniture, Internet access, access to an electronic legal database, and an office 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
telephone.  Begovic used Moore’s credit card and checking accounts to pay 
business-related expenses, and Moore paid Begovic’s continuing-legal-education 
and travel expenses. 
{¶ 10} Begovic officially began working in this position in mid-February 
2017.  Before that, on January 31, he applied for membership in the Cincinnati Bar 
Association and indicated on the application that he worked for “The Moore Law 
Firm.”  At Moore’s instruction, he also filed notices of substitution of counsel in 
several cases in January, before his February start date.  Begovic terminated his 
working relationship with Moore on May 14 or 15, 2017, as a result of the 
Cincinnati Bar Association’s investigation in this matter.  At that time, he filed 
numerous notices of withdrawal as counsel, but he did not inform the clients that 
he was no longer working on their behalf. 
B. Begovic failed to register his professional association with Moore 
{¶ 11} Despite knowing that Moore was under suspension when he began 
his working relationship with him, Begovic failed to register that relationship with 
the Office of Disciplinary Counsel as required by Gov.Bar R. V(23)(C) (requiring 
an attorney to register any employment, contractual, or consulting relationship with 
a disqualified or suspended attorney with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel before 
commencing such a relationship).  The board was therefore justified in finding a 
violation of that rule. 
C. Begovic assisted Moore in the unauthorized practice of law 
1. Begovic continually held himself out as associated with 
“The Moore Law Firm” 
{¶ 12} Although Begovic testified that he had been hired to provide services 
in connection with the Moore Business Advisory Group, Begovic had identified 
himself on 35 court filings and multiple e-mails to opposing counsel as working for 
“The Moore Law Firm” or the “Law Offices of Rodger Moore.”  Begovic offered 
January Term, 2019 
 
5
no coherent explanation for his having identified himself as part of a law firm 
headed by Moore. 
{¶ 13} Moreover, Begovic admitted that in obtaining professional-liability 
insurance in February 2017, he was told by the insurer that under the policy, he had 
to practice “as an individual entity and not under the name ‘The Moore Advisory 
Group LLC’ ” and that he also had to make clear to clients that he was an individual 
practitioner and not an employee of that organization.  Begovic admitted that he 
had failed to comply with the insurer’s requirements. 
2. Moore’s involvement in collection work for PHI Air 
{¶ 14} The majority of Begovic’s work in association with Moore consisted 
of collection work for PHI Air Medical, L.L.C.  On Moore’s instruction, Begovic 
filed a substitution of counsel in at least 14 such cases, stating that he worked for 
the Moore Law Firm and that he had replaced attorney Andrew Green as counsel 
for PHI Air. 
{¶ 15} Moore directly participated in litigating at least some of the PHI Air 
cases.  In one case, Begovic permitted Moore to participate in a telephone 
conference with opposing counsel, and during that conference, he referred to Moore 
as his supervisor.  And in relation to that same case, on five occasions, he permitted 
Moore to independently communicate by e-mail with opposing counsel concerning 
settlement negotiations and discovery issues.  In another case, he permitted Moore 
to participate in a case-management conference by telephone to discuss settlement 
and discovery issues.  During that conference, opposing counsel noticed a second 
voice on the line with Begovic, and when the judge demanded to know who was 
on the call, Moore identified himself and stated that he was Begovic’s supervisor.  
Begovic did not clarify his relationship with Moore during that call, nor did he 
inform the court that Moore was a suspended lawyer. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
3. Moore’s participation in the Beckelhymer matter 
{¶ 16} On Moore’s instruction, Begovic filed a notice of substitution of 
counsel on January 24, 2017, indicating that he was replacing Andrew Green in 
representing Tiffany Beckelhymer and that he was an attorney with “The Moore 
Law Firm.”  On March 15, 2017, Begovic and Moore attended the damages hearing 
in that case, and when the magistrate asked the people in the room to identify 
themselves, Moore identified himself and Beckelhymer’s mother as “just 
spectators.” 
{¶ 17} Begovic conducted the questioning of the witnesses in the hearing.  
But the audio recording of the hearing shows that Moore did participate and 
represent Beckelhymer at various points during the proceeding.  For example: 
 
In responding to a question from the magistrate as to whether anyone with 
an interest in the case was in the hall, Moore answered, “There is not anyone 
else out in the hall, but we have tried to contact the opposite side on many 
occasions and we’ve had absolutely no luck so it’s highly unlikely they will 
be here.” 
 
When the magistrate asked for medical records, Moore instructed Begovic, 
“Submit those.” 
 
In answer to the magistrate’s concern regarding Beckelhymer’s ability to 
collect any judgment awarded, Moore said, “That’s the next step.” 
 
In response to the magistrate’s questions regarding a missing medical bill, 
Moore assured the magistrate, “[W]e’ll supplement the record with that as 
soon as possible, your honor.” 
{¶ 18} The board justifiably regarded Begovic’s permitting Moore to 
directly participate in litigating cases and in discussions with clients and opposing 
counsel, and his repeatedly holding himself out as an associate of Moore’s, as 
assisting Moore to practice law during Moore’s suspension in violation of 
January Term, 2019 
 
7
Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from assisting another in practicing law 
in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession). 
D. Begovic’s failure to disclose his lack of professional-liability insurance 
{¶ 19} The record shows that Begovic obtained legal-malpractice insurance 
through the Ohio Bar Liability Insurance Company and that it became effective on 
February 9, 2017.  And the stipulations identify “mid-February of 2017” as the time 
when Begovic began working in association with Moore.  Thus, through most of 
Begovic’s association with Moore he was covered by professional-liability 
insurance. 
{¶ 20} But Begovic represented clients prior to the effective date of his 
insurance.  Specifically, in January 2017, he filed substitution-of-counsel notices in 
the Beckelhymer case and at least six PHI Air cases.  Begovic had no personal 
contact with those clients and failed to inform them that he did not carry 
professional-liability insurance.  On these facts, the board was justified in finding 
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform a client if the lawyer 
does not maintain professional-liability insurance). 
E. Begovic’s failure to communicate with PHI Air and to obtain its 
informed consent to act on its behalf 
{¶ 21} Begovic stipulated that he did not have direct contact with PHI Air, 
that Moore was the contact person for PHI Air, and that all communications from 
PHI Air went to Moore, who conveyed them to Begovic and told Begovic what 
actions to take. 
{¶ 22} By failing to directly interact with PHI Air, Begovic violated his duty 
to inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the 
client’s informed consent was required and the duty to keep the client reasonably 
informed.  Accordingly, the board was justified in concluding that Begovic violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(1) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client of any decision or 
circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required) and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status 
of a matter). 
F. Begovic’s violation of rules regarding fees for legal services 
{¶ 23} Begovic’s association with Moore involved his agreement to receive 
a set salary, to be paid biweekly.  At no time during the association did Begovic 
himself enter into fee agreements with any of the clients for whom he provided 
legal services.  The record establishes that Begovic was aware that Moore was 
being paid by Begovic’s clients for Begovic’s services but that Begovic never 
discussed legal fees with his clients or with Moore.  Indeed, Moore alone handled 
the fee relationship with the clients, and Begovic accounted for his time to Moore 
with a time sheet. 
{¶ 24} From these facts it is clear that Begovic himself never communicated 
the nature and scope of his representation to his clients, nor did he discuss with 
them the basis or rate of the fee for which they would be responsible.  The board 
was therefore justified in finding that Begovic violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(b) 
(requiring an attorney to communicate the nature and scope of the representation 
and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses within a reasonable time after 
commencing the representation). 
{¶ 25} Additionally, the board was justified in regarding Begovic’s salary 
agreement with Moore as violative of Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(f) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from accepting compensation for representing a client from someone other than the 
client unless the conditions in Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(f)(1), (2), and (3) are met).  First, 
because Begovic did not himself communicate with the clients about fees, he lacked 
a sufficient basis for concluding that informed consent had been given to his being 
paid a salary by Moore for the legal services rendered by Begovic to the clients, 
and informed consent is required by Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(f)(1).  Moreover, even if 
Begovic had obtained consent, it appears that the other conditions of the rule were 
not satisfied.  See Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(f)(2) (there must be “no interference with the 
January Term, 2019 
 
9
lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer 
relationship”); 1.8(f)(3) (information relating to representation of the client must be 
protected as required by Prof.Cond.R. 1.6). 
{¶ 26} The board also found a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 5.4(a) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer, except in circumstances not 
present in this case).  Although Begovic received a fixed salary from Moore, the 
record raises the inference that Moore paid Begovic’s salary out of fees that Moore 
collected from the clients for Begovic’s work.  And although there is no specific 
evidence as to Moore’s arrangements with the clients, and no documentation of any 
amounts paid by them to Moore, Begovic stipulated to the violation based on his 
own understanding of the relationship.  We therefore uphold the board’s finding of 
a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 5.4(a). 
{¶ 27} In sum, the board found and we agree that Begovic violated Gov.Bar 
R. V(23)(C) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(1), 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(c), 1.5(b), 1.8(f), 5.4(a), and 
5.5(a). 
II. SANCTION 
A. Mitigating and aggravating factors 
{¶ 28} As for mitigating factors, the board accepted the parties’ stipulation 
that Begovic had no prior disciplinary record, although it also noted that Begovic 
had been admitted to the practice of law a mere three months before beginning his 
association with Moore, see Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1); that Begovic lacked a 
dishonest or selfish motive in connection with his violations, see Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(2); and that Begovic was cooperative throughout the proceedings, see 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(4). 
{¶ 29} With respect to aggravating factors, the board found that Begovic 
had admitted committing multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  
See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(4).  Then the board found additional aggravating factors, 
which we summarize as follows: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
 
Although toward the end of the hearing Begovic stipulated to all the alleged 
rule violations, he persisted in failing to accept responsibility for his 
misconduct.  Begovic, citing naivete and poor judgment, continued to state, 
as if it were fully exonerating, that he “simply did not realize” that he was 
violating the professional-conduct rules.  In his posthearing brief, Begovic 
admitted violating the rules but said the violations resulted from his having 
“placed himself in a bad position” and argued that his failure to recognize 
that his conduct was assisting an unlicensed attorney to practice “should not 
be treated the same as that of the unlicensed attorney engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law.” 
 
Begovic failed to appreciate the wrongful nature of his conduct, see 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(7), seeming to view his violations as essentially 
technical rather than substantial.  And until the hearing, he denied having 
committed any of the charged violations.  At the start of the hearing, 
Begovic stipulated to only two violations, and at the end of the hearing, 
when he finally did stipulate that he had violated all the cited provisions, 
Begovic stated, “I shouldn’t have defended my conduct on the basis that 
while it may have been a borderline violation, it wasn’t an actual violation 
* * *.”  (Emphasis added.)  
 
By assisting Moore in the unauthorized practice of law, Begovic harmed the 
public.  And in filing notices of withdrawal in multiple cases without any 
client consultation, without providing for the disposition of the clients’ files, 
and without regard for the need to protect the clients’ position in any 
pending litigation, Begovic harmed his clients, see Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(8). 
 
During the course of his association with Moore and even during the various 
stages of the disciplinary proceeding, Begovic remained willfully ignorant 
of his own professional obligations in light of Moore’s suspension.  Begovic 
January Term, 2019 
 
11 
failed to make any effort to determine whether his relationship with Moore 
was subject to any special rules or oversight and did not even look into the 
reasons for Moore’s suspension. 
{¶ 30} We agree with the board’s findings of mitigating and aggravating 
factors. 
B. The propriety of the recommended sanction 
{¶ 31} When imposing a sanction for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
the 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. 
{¶ 32} Begovic has advocated for a public reprimand, and the board took 
note of two cases involving public reprimand as a sanction for assisting the 
unauthorized practice of law.  In Columbus Bar Assn. v. Gaba, 98 Ohio St.3d 351, 
2003-Ohio-1012, 785 N.E.2d 437, this court imposed a public reprimand and 
monitored probation on an attorney who admitted having permitted her clients to 
talk with nonlawyer staff members when the clients could have believed that they 
were speaking with licensed attorneys.  And in Disciplinary Counsel v. Willis, 96 
Ohio St.3d 142, 2002-Ohio-3614, 772 N.E.2d 625, this court imposed a public 
reprimand on an attorney who had “relied too heavily” on a former lawyer who had 
been disbarred in New York and was not licensed in Ohio.  Id. at ¶ 3.  Willis’s 
misconduct included allowing the nonattorney, Bruce Brown, to attend depositions 
without clarifying Brown’s nonattorney status to other counsel.  He also absented 
himself from a deposition that he permitted Brown to attend, and during that 
deposition, Brown interposed objections during the examination of the deponent.  
In a separate instance, Willis virtually abandoned two clients to Brown’s authority 
without mentioning that Brown was not licensed to practice law.  During the course 
of the representation, Brown demanded payment of fees.  The clients ultimately 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
asked Brown to withdraw as their attorney and sought resolution of a fee dispute 
with Brown through the Cleveland Bar Association. 
{¶ 33} The present case differs from the cited public-reprimand cases in two 
ways.  First, the record demonstrates that Begovic clearly lacks an understanding 
of his ethical duties as an attorney.  Second, Begovic failed to acknowledge the 
wrongful nature of his conduct. 
{¶ 34} Relator has advocated for a term suspension, and as a point of 
reference, the board took note of two cases in which this court imposed indefinite 
suspensions on attorneys who aided in the unauthorized practice of law.  Cincinnati 
Bar Assn. v. Fehler-Schultz, 64 Ohio St.3d 452, 597 N.E.2d 79 (1992); Cleveland 
Metro. Bar Assn. v. Axner, 135 Ohio St.3d 241, 2013-Ohio-400, 985 N.E.2d 1257.  
For more specific guidance, the board then looked to two cases in which term 
suspensions were imposed.  Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Patterson, 124 Ohio St.3d 
93, 2009-Ohio-6166, 919 N.E.2d 206; Disciplinary Counsel v. Willard, 123 Ohio 
St.3d 15, 2009-Ohio-3629, 913 N.E.2d 960.  In each case, the attorney-respondent 
had teamed with a nonattorney organization that negotiated with lenders on behalf 
of customers who faced foreclosure.  Patterson at ¶ 9, 13; Willard at ¶ 4, 5, 14  In 
each case, the attorney accepted a flat fee to represent the customers in the 
foreclosure cases, without meeting with the clients, without independently 
determining the pertinent facts of the cases, and without otherwise ascertaining 
client needs and objectives.  Patterson at ¶ 9-11, 22-24; Willard at ¶ 6-8, 10, 18.  
Parallel violations were found in the two cases that included assisting a nonlawyer 
to engage in the unauthorized practice of law; sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer; 
and some combination of ethical violations involving failing to communicate with 
clients, handling legal matters without adequately preparing, and failing to seek the 
lawful objectives of the client. 
{¶ 35} The attorney in Patterson had also neglected an entrusted probate 
matter.  For his misconduct, we suspended the attorney for 18 months with six 
January Term, 2019 
 
13 
months stayed on the condition of no further misconduct.  And in Willard, we 
suspended the attorney for one year with six months stayed on the condition of no 
further misconduct. 
{¶ 36} We find that Patterson and Willard support imposing a term 
suspension, and we agree with the board’s recommended sanction of a one-year 
suspension with six months stayed on conditions.  Additionally, Begovic’s clear 
lack of understanding of his ethical obligations makes it appropriate to condition 
the stay on additional legal-ethics training as well as to impose a period of 
monitored probation after reinstatement. 
III. CONCLUSION 
{¶ 37} We adopt the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended 
sanction of the board.  Accordingly, we suspend Begovic from the practice of law 
for one year, with six months of that suspension stayed on the conditions that he 
engage in no further misconduct and that he complete a minimum of six hours of 
continuing legal education (“CLE”), in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. 
X, on the topic of legal ethics prior to the end of his next CLE-compliance period—
December 31, 2019.  If Begovic fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the 
stay will be lifted and he shall serve the full one-year suspension.  Upon 
reinstatement to the practice of law, Begovic shall serve a two-year term of 
monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(21).  The monitor shall oversee his 
acclimation to the responsible and ethical practice of law and his implementation 
of proper law-office-management procedures, including those related to fee 
agreements, client communications, and client-trust-account management and 
recordkeeping.  Costs are taxed to Begovic. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, FISCHER, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., 
concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
14 
KENNEDY, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with an opinion joined by 
DEWINE, J. 
_________________ 
KENNEDY, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
{¶ 38} I agree with the majority’s determination that an actual suspension 
of respondent, Michael Joseph Begovic, is warranted, and I concur in the following 
part of the court’s opinion: 
 
[W]e suspend Begovic from the practice of law for one year, with six 
months of that suspension stayed on the conditions that he engage in no 
further misconduct and that he complete a minimum of six hours of 
continuing legal education (“CLE”), in addition to the requirements of 
Gov.Bar R. X, on the topic of legal ethics prior to the end of his next CLE-
compliance period—December 31, 2019.  If Begovic fails to comply with 
the conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he shall serve the full 
one-year suspension.  * * *  Costs are taxed to Begovic. 
 
Majority opinion at ¶ 37. 
{¶ 39} I dissent, however, from the part of the court’s opinion imposing a 
two-year period of monitored probation to “oversee his acclimation to the 
responsible and ethical practice of law and his implementation of proper law-office-
management procedures, including those related to fee agreements, client 
communications, and client-trust-account management and recordkeeping.”  Id. at 
¶ 37. 
{¶ 40} “Monitored probation is a valuable tool in Ohio’s discipline system; 
it enables us to protect the public while educating the attorney and correcting the 
underlying misconduct.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Halligan, ___ Ohio St.3d __, 
2019-Ohio-3748, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 41 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting 
January Term, 2019 
 
15 
in part).  However, monitors are a precious finite resource, and we should “employ 
their services only when it is absolutely necessary: when the benefit of a monitor’s 
service will educate the errant attorney and alleviate the underlying misconduct, 
while protecting the public.”  Toledo Bar Assn. v. Manore, __ Ohio St.3d. __, 2019-
Ohio-3846, __N.E.3d __, ¶ 23 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in 
part). 
{¶ 41} In my view, this case does not merit the use of a monitor, because 
Begovic’s misconduct was the direct result of his deliberate acts.  Begovic knew 
when he began working for Rodger Moore in mid-February 2017 that Moore was 
under an active suspension.  Nevertheless, Begovic repeatedly assisted Moore in 
the unauthorized practice of law.  Moore attended a court hearing with Begovic at 
which Moore participated and assisted Begovic in representing the client.  In 
another matter, Begovic permitted Moore to independently communicate with 
opposing counsel regarding settlement negotiations and discovery matters.  For one 
client, all communications went to Moore, who then conveyed them to Begovic 
along with instructions on what actions to take.  Begovic also allowed Moore to 
participate in a telephone case-management conference. 
{¶ 42} When Begovic filed his membership application with the Cincinnati 
Bar Association he indicated that he was working for “The Moore Law Firm” even 
though Moore had told him that he would be “working as a 1099 contractor for the 
Moore Business Advisory Group as opposed to working directly with [Moore] as 
an employee or with his firm.”  Even though he was advised by his professional-
liability insurer that he had to make it apparent to his clients that he was an 
individual practitioner, he indicated on numerous court filings that he was affiliated 
with “The Moore Law Firm.” 
{¶ 43} Begovic’s failing to register his relationship with Moore in violation 
of Gov.Bar R. V(23)(C), holding himself out as associated with “The Moore Law 
Firm,” permitting Moore to directly participate in discussions with clients and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
16 
opposing counsel and in the litigation of cases, and allowing Moore to direct his 
handling of client matters and to respond to questions during courtroom 
proceedings were all deliberate acts. 
{¶ 44} There is no amount of monitoring to “oversee his * * * 
implementation of proper law-office-management procedures, including those 
related to fee agreement, client communications, and client-trust-account 
management and recordkeeping,” majority opinion at ¶ 37, that will protect the 
public, educate Begovic, or correct his misconduct, which stemmed from his 
“remain[ing] willfully ignorant of his own professional obligations in lights of 
Moore’s suspension,” id. at ¶ 29.  If the disciplinary process and the required six 
hours of continuing legal education on the topic of legal ethics are not sufficient to 
educate Begovic and correct his behavior regarding engaging in a professional 
association with a suspended attorney, no amount of monitoring will acclimate him 
to the “responsible and ethical practice of law,” id. at ¶ 37. 
{¶ 45} Because the majority imposes a term of monitored probation, I 
concur in part and dissent in part. 
DEWINE, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
_________________ 
 
The Abrams Law Firm and Laura A. Abrams; Kelly A. Holden; and Edwin 
W. Patterson III, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
 
Michael Joseph Begovic, pro se. 
_________________