Title: Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. McGee

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. McGee, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-973.] 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-973 
BUTLER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MCGEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. McGee,  
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-973.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2014-1376—Submitted September 10, 2014—Decided March 18, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2014-006. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Gary Alan McGee of Hamilton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0031834, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1981.  
On February 3, 2014, relator, Butler County Bar Association, charged McGee 
with professional misconduct, alleging that he had neglected a client’s personal-
injury matter, failed to reasonably communicate with the client, and voluntarily 
dismissed the case without the client’s knowledge or consent. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline1 considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11.2  An amended consent-to-discipline agreement was 
subsequently filed to correct a clerical error in the original. 
{¶ 3} In the amended consent-to-discipline agreement, McGee stipulates 
to many of the facts alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that his conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.2 (requiring a lawyer to abide by the client’s decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation and to consult with the client as to the 
means by which they are to be pursued), 1.4 (requiring a lawyer to reasonably 
communicate with a client), 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to reasonably consult 
with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be 
accomplished), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter), and 1.4(b) (requiring a lawyer to explain a 
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
decisions regarding the representation).  Relator also agreed to withdraw the 
alleged violations set forth in the second count of its complaint. 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that the mitigating factors include the absence 
of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, 
McGee’s cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and evidence 
of his good character or reputation apart from the charged misconduct.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e).3  The parties do not note any 
aggravating factors.  Based upon McGee’s stipulated misconduct and these 
factors, the parties stipulate that the appropriate sanction is a public reprimand. 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
2  Effective January 1, 2015, Gov.Bar R. V(16), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXX, governs consent-to-
discipline agreements. 
3 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
January Term, 2015 
3 
 
{¶ 5} The panel and board found that the amended consent-to-discipline 
agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and recommend that we adopt the 
agreement in its entirety.  In support of its recommendation, the panel cites four 
cases in which we publicly reprimanded attorneys who engaged in comparable 
misconduct: Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Godles, 128 Ohio St.3d 279, 2010-Ohio-
6274, 943 N.E.2d 988 (publicly reprimanding an attorney who performed very 
little work on a client’s personal-injury case and failed to reasonably 
communicate with the client regarding the management and status of his case); 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Dundon, 129 Ohio St.3d 571, 2011-Ohio-4199, 954 
N.E.2d 1186 (publicly reprimanding an attorney who failed to regularly 
communicate with the client, failed to follow up on the status of documents 
related to the representation, and failed to timely respond to a successor attorney’s 
request for a refund of the client’s fees); Akron Bar Assn. v. Freedman, 128 Ohio 
St.3d 497, 2011-Ohio-1959, 946 N.E.2d 753 (publicly reprimanding an attorney 
who failed to timely communicate with a couple who had retained him, failed to 
keep them reasonably informed about the status of their case, failed to inform 
them that he did not maintain professional liability insurance, and failed to advise 
them that under certain circumstances, they could be entitled to a refund of part or 
all of their “nonrefundable fee”); and Columbus Bar Assn. v. Bhatt, 133 Ohio 
St.3d 131, 2012-Ohio-4230, 976 N.E.2d 870 (publicly reprimanding an attorney 
for neglecting two client matters, failing to keep clients reasonably informed 
about their matters, and failing to notify clients that his professional liability 
insurance had lapsed). 
{¶ 6} We agree that McGee violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.2, 1.4, 1.4(a)(2), 
1.4(a)(3), and 1.4(b), as stated in the parties’ amended agreement, and that this 
conduct warrants a public reprimand.  We therefore adopt the parties’ amended 
consent-to-discipline agreement and accept relator’s withdrawal of the allegations 
in count two of the complaint. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 7} Accordingly, Gary Alan McGee is hereby publicly reprimanded.  
Costs are taxed to McGee. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Christopher J. Pagan and Bennett A. Manning, for relator. 
Charles J. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
______________________