Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Forg

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Forg, 99 Ohio St.3d 429, 2003-Ohio-4079.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. FORG. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Forg, 99 Ohio St.3d 429, 2003-Ohio-4079.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglect of an 
entrusted legal matter — Failing to cooperate in disciplinary 
investigation — Previous suspension from practice of law. 
(No. 2003-0704 — Submitted June 4, 2003 — Decided August 13, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board for Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-66. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, E. Farran Forg, also known as Elizabeth Farran Forg, 
of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0061123, was admitted to the 
practice of law in Ohio in May 1993.  On December 18, 2002, we suspended 
respondent’s license for one year, staying six months of this sanction, because she 
neglected a client’s case and used the client’s funds as her own.  Cincinnati Bar 
Assn. v. Forg, 97 Ohio St.3d 495, 2002-Ohio-6727, 780 N.E.2d 582.  On August 
12, 2002, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint charging that 
respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by neglecting a second client’s case and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by failing to cooperate in the investigation of that 
misconduct.  Respondent was served the complaint but did not answer, and relator 
moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  The Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline (“board”) appointed a master commissioner to 
consider the motion and make findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 
recommendation. 
{¶2} 
The master commissioner found that a client had retained 
respondent in October 2000 to write a will, among other services, and paid her a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
$150 retainer.  Respondent prepared a first draft that needed corrections and a 
second draft with which the client still was not satisfied.  Respondent failed to 
make the requested changes and also failed to reply to the client’s repeated 
attempts to contact her.  Respondent further did not respond to two letters of 
inquiry sent by relator’s investigator. 
{¶3} 
The master commissioner concluded that respondent had thereby 
violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  In recommending a sanction, 
the master commissioner observed that this neglect began prior to the events that 
led to respondent’s December 2002 suspension and that respondent consistently 
did not cooperate in either investigation or disciplinary proceeding.  Moreover, no 
evidence suggested that respondent has refunded any of the client’s $150. 
{¶4} 
The master commissioner recommended that respondent be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  The board adopted the findings 
of misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶5} 
We agree that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) and that an indefinite suspension is appropriate.  Cuyahoga Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Cicirella (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 224, 761 N.E.2d 1046 (indefinite 
suspension imposed on motion for default due to attorney’s neglect, failure to 
maintain accounts, dishonesty, and aggravated by prior suspension for previous 
neglect).  Respondent is therefore suspended indefinitely from the practice of law 
in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Beth Silverman and David Wagner, for relator. 
__________________