Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Troxell

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Troxell, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-3178.] 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-3178 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. TROXELL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Troxell,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-3178.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Multiple violations of the Code of Professional 
Conduct — Indefinite license suspension. 
(No. 2010-2248 — Submitted February 16, 2011 — Decided July 6, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-007. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Richard Hollingsworth Harold Troxell of Hilliard, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0066395, was admitted to the practice of law in 
Ohio in 1996. 
{¶ 2} On February 8, 2010, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a 
three-count complaint charging respondent with professional misconduct arising 
from his alleged neglect of client matters, failure to provide competent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
representation, failure to reasonably communicate with his clients or respond to 
their demands for information, failure to give notice of, account for, and deliver 
funds in which a client or third person has an interest, and failure to respond to the 
resulting disciplinary investigations. 
{¶ 3} Respondent was served with relator’s complaint by certified mail 
on February 19, 2010, and relator’s counsel went to respondent’s home and 
advised him that relator would seek a default judgment if respondent did not 
cooperate.  Because respondent did not file an answer or otherwise appear in the 
action, relator filed a motion for default judgment pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(F).  In support of that motion, relator submitted the affidavit of its counsel 
and two of the three clients affected by respondent’s conduct, sworn copies of 
relator’s correspondence, and the transcript of an attempted deposition. 
{¶ 4} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline granted relator’s motion, making findings of fact 
and misconduct and recommending that respondent be indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s report in 
its entirety.  We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct and indefinitely 
suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio. 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 5} In January 2004, a man retained respondent to represent him in a 
personal-injury action.  After four years, respondent settled the client’s case for 
$236,000, from which he deducted his one-third fee, paid the client’s subrogated 
medical expenses, and retained $15,000 to cover any lien that Medicare might 
have on the settlement proceeds.  Respondent has not provided the client with an 
accounting or returned the remaining $15,000 and has not responded to the 
client’s efforts to reach him by letter or telephone. 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
{¶ 6} Relator sent respondent a letter of inquiry regarding the client’s 
grievance on August 6, 2008, and followed up with letters in September and 
October, but respondent did not respond.  In response to relator’s November 2008 
mailing of a notice of deposition and request for production of documents, 
respondent sent a three-page letter addressing some aspects of the client’s 
grievance.  The day before the scheduled deposition, respondent called and agreed 
to provide documentation relating to the client’s case.  Consequently, relator 
canceled the deposition.  However, respondent never provided the requested 
documents and failed to attend a second scheduled deposition. 
{¶ 7} The board found, and we agree, that respondent’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4 (requiring a lawyer to reasonably communicate with a client), 
1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that the 
client is entitled to receive), 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing 
to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an 
investigation), 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that 
reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness), and 8.4(h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Count Two 
{¶ 8} In the spring of 2007, a second client retained respondent to 
represent him for injuries he had received in an automobile accident.  Despite the 
client’s repeated attempts to contact respondent, he has not heard from respondent 
since early 2008.  In July 2009, a claims adjuster for the tortfeasor’s insurance 
company informed the client that respondent had settled his claim for $4,000 in 
May 2008, but that the settlement check had never been cashed, and an executed 
release had never been returned.  The client eventually settled his claim with the 
tortfeasor’s insurance company without the assistance of legal counsel. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 9} Respondent has not responded to relator’s letters of inquiry 
regarding this matter, has failed to appear for a properly noticed deposition, and 
has not responded to relator’s request for production of documents. 
{¶ 10} The board found that respondent’s conduct with respect to this 
count violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent 
representation to a client), 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence 
in representing a client), 1.4, 1.15(d), and 8.4(h), as well as 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation). 
Count Three 
{¶ 11} On April 2, 2009, relator sent a letter to respondent at the address 
on file with the Office of Attorney Registration seeking his response to a 
grievance filed by a third client.  That letter was returned by the postal service 
marked “Troxell law office box closed[,] unable to forward[,]  return to sender.”  
When relator had not received a response by April 30, 2009, it sent a second 
demand for a response via certified mail.  That letter was returned marked, 
“Return to sender[,] unclaimed[,] unable to forward.”  On May 21, 2009, relator 
sent a notice of deposition and request for production of documents regarding this 
grievance and the grievances discussed in counts one and two above, by certified 
mail to respondent’s home and business addresses.  Respondent signed for the 
letter sent to his business address, but the envelope sent to his home address was 
returned unclaimed.  Respondent did not appear for the deposition. 
{¶ 12} Unable to obtain an affidavit from the third grievant, relator moved 
to dismiss the alleged violations related to the underlying grievance.  
Notwithstanding the grievant’s decision to withdraw her grievance, the board 
found that respondent had ignored relator’s request for information and did not 
file an answer regarding the allegations in the complaint.  Therefore, it found by 
clear and convincing evidence that respondent had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) 
and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} In recommending that respondent be indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law, the master commissioner and board considered the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  See Stark 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 
818, ¶ 16.   
{¶ 14} They found, as aggravating factors, that respondent had acted with 
a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in 
the disciplinary process, has refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his 
conduct, has caused harm to vulnerable clients, and has failed to make restitution.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i).  The only mitigating 
factor they found was that respondent has no prior disciplinary record.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). 
{¶ 15} Respondent has failed to provide an accounting or deliver funds in 
which a client has an interest, has failed to provide competent representation, has 
failed to act with reasonable diligence, and has failed to respond to three separate 
disciplinary investigations.  By engaging in this conduct, he has violated his 
duties to his clients, the public, and the legal profession. 
{¶ 16} The board has concluded that an indefinite suspension is 
appropriate, applying the rule that “ ‘[a] lawyer’s neglect of legal matters and 
failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation generally warrant an 
indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio,’ ”  Cleveland Metro. Bar 
Assn. v. Kaplan, 124 Ohio St.3d 278, 2010-Ohio-167, 921 N.E.2d 645, ¶ 15, 
quoting Akron Bar Assn. v. Goodlet, 115 Ohio St.3d 7, 2007-Ohio-4271, 873 
N.E.2d 815, ¶ 20.  See also Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 
365, 2007-Ohio-2076, 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 19.  Having reviewed the record, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions 
imposed for comparable conduct, we agree that an indefinite license suspension is 
the appropriate sanction in this case. 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, Richard Hollingsworth Harold Troxell is indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar Counsel, 
Anne Valentine, and Paul Leithart II, for relator. 
______________________