Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. McGrath

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. McGrath, 94 Ohio St.3d 149, 2002-Ohio-323.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. MCGRATH. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. McGrath (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 149.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglect of an entrusted 
legal matter — Failing to carry out contract for professional employment — 
Prejudicing or damaging client during course of professional relationship 
— Failing to promptly deliver to client funds or property to which client is 
entitled — Neglecting or refusing to assist or testify in disciplinary 
investigation or hearing. 
(No. 01-1558 — Submitted October 16, 2001 — Decided January 16, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court, No. 01-25. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On April 9, 2001, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent, James B. McGrath, Jr., of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0021092, with neglect in his failure to represent adequately his 
client, Indell Construction Corporation.  Attempts by relator, Cincinnati Bar 
Association, to serve the complaint at respondent’s residence and office were 
unsuccessful, and relator finally served the complaint upon the Clerk of the Supreme 
Court of Ohio as authorized by Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  When relator’s subsequent 
attempts to contact respondent were fruitless, relator filed a motion for default.  The 
motion was referred by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“board”) to board member Judge Leo M. Spellacy for ruling. 
 
Based upon the allegations of the complaint, the board member found that in 
November 1995, Indell Construction Corporation retained respondent, and in 1996, 
respondent agreed to recover payment from the Bernsteins for construction work that 
Indell had done for them.  Indell turned over corporate stock, documents relating to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
business transactions, personal and corporate deeds, and contracts to respondent.  
Respondent told Indell to have all its subcontractors call respondent. 
 
The board member further found that respondent did not reply when 
contacted by Indell’s subcontractors or take any action on the dispute with the 
Bernsteins.  In fact, respondent did not contact Indell again.  As a result, Indell was 
unable to pay its subcontractors.  Respondent did not return Indell’s documents when 
requested, nor did respondent cooperate with relator’s investigation. 
 
The board member concluded that respondent’s inaction in this matter 
violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), 7-
101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not fail to carry out a contract for professional 
employment), 7-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not prejudice or damage his client), 9-
102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client funds or property to which 
the client is entitled), and, for failure to  cooperate with relator,  Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) 
(no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in an investigation or hearing).  
The board member recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board member. 
 
Having reviewed the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
James F. Brockman and Robert F. Laufman, for relator. 
__________________