Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. McClain

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. McClain, 95 Ohio St.3d 488, 2002-Ohio-2428.] 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. MCCLAIN. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. McClain, 95 Ohio St.3d 488, 2002-Ohio-2428.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Restitution to clients 
ordered — Failing to promptly deliver to client funds or property to 
which client is entitled — Failing to seek lawful objectives of client — 
Failing to carry out contract for professional employment — Prejudicing 
or damaging client during course of professional relationship — Neglect 
of an entrusted legal matter — Neglecting or refusing to assist or testify 
in a disciplinary investigation or hearing. 
(No. 2001-2221 — Submitted February 27, 2002 — Decided June 5, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-101. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In February 1999, Eric K. Robinson paid $1,000 of an agreed 
$2,500 retainer to respondent, Mark McClain of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0013148, for representation in a civil suit.  When Robinson 
visited respondent’s offices a week later, the written contract he was asked to 
execute indicated the retainer would be $3,500.  Robinson refused to sign the 
contract, said that he no longer wished to retain respondent, and asked for his 
$1,000 down payment to be returned.  Respondent did not return the $1,000 and 
did not provide respondent with an invoice to indicate that he had performed any 
services for the $1,000. 
{¶2} 
In June 1999, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, began an 
investigation of respondent’s conduct, but respondent did not reply to relator’s 
letters or other inquiries. 
{¶3} 
After Carolyn Ray retained respondent in September 1993 and 
paid him a $1,000 retainer to represent her in a case involving her children, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
respondent entered an appearance in the case and, without consulting Ray, filed a 
voluntary dismissal and never told Ray of his action.  Respondent failed to refile 
the case within a year, and when he did refile in November 1994, he did not 
oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and it was granted.  Ray was then 
barred from refiling her action.  Respondent claimed that another attorney, with 
whom he shared office space, was to work on the case and failed to do so.  When 
Ray asked for a return of $500 of her retainer, respondent failed to comply and 
never provided an accounting of his time spent on the case. 
{¶4} 
On December 4, 2000, relator filed a complaint charging that 
respondent’s actions and omissions in the Robinson and Ray matters violated 
several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and that his failure 
to cooperate in relator’s investigation violated provisions of the Rules for the 
Government of the Bar.  Respondent did not answer, and the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”) referred the matter to 
Board Member W. Scott Gwinn to rule on relator’s motion for default. 
{¶5} 
Being advised of the unrefuted allegations of the complaint and the 
evidence submitted by relator, Board Member Gwinn found the facts as set forth 
above.  The member concluded that in the Robinson matter, respondent had 
violated DR 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client funds or 
property to which the client is entitled).  He further concluded that in the Ray 
matter respondent had violated DR 7-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not intentionally 
fail to seek the lawful objectives of a client), 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 during course of professional relationship), 6-
101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), and 9-102(B)(4).  
He also concluded that respondent’s failure to cooperate in relator’s investigation 
of his conduct in the Robinson matter had violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no 
attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in a disciplinary investigation or 
January Term, 2002 
3 
hearing).  Board Member Gwinn recommended that respondent be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio and that he be ordered to pay 
restitution to Robinson and Ray in the amount of $1,000 each with statutory 
interest. 
{¶6} 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation 
of Board Member Gwinn. 
{¶7} 
On 
review, 
we 
adopt 
the 
findings, 
conclusions, 
and 
recommendations of the board.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio and ordered to pay restitution to Robinson and 
Ray in the amount of $1,000 each with interest at the statutory rate.  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Alan M. Petrov and Charles A. Bowers, for relator. 
__________________