Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Watson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Watson, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-2212.] 
 
                                                                
 
 
 
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. 2022-OHIO-2212 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. WATSON. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Watson, Slip Opinion No.  
2022-Ohio-2212.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—One-
year suspension, stayed in its entirety on conditions. 
(No. 2022-0152—Submitted March 8, 2022—Decided June 30, 2022.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct 
of the Supreme Court, No. 2021-016. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Myron Parnell Watson, of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0058583, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1992. 
{¶ 2} In an eight-count June 2021 complaint, relator, Cleveland 
Metropolitan Bar Association, alleged that Watson had committed 23 ethical 
violations in his representation of seven personal-injury clients.  Among other 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
things, relator alleged that Watson had neglected several client matters, failed to 
reasonably communicate with some of the clients, failed to prepare closing 
statements in two contingent-fee cases, failed to promptly pay his clients’ medical 
bills out of their settlement proceeds, and failed to maintain required client-trust-
account records.  Watson admitted to 16 of the alleged rule violations in his answer 
to the complaint.  The parties later entered into comprehensive stipulations in which 
Watson again admitted to those rule violations and relator agreed to dismiss seven 
others, including all of Count Seven.  The parties submitted 20 stipulated exhibits, 
stipulated to aggravating and mitigating factors, and jointly recommended that this 
court impose a one-year conditionally stayed suspension for Watson’s misconduct. 
{¶ 3} The matter proceeded to a hearing before a three-member panel of the 
Board of Professional Conduct, at which Watson was the sole witness.  The panel 
found that Watson had engaged in the stipulated misconduct and, based on the 
stipulated aggravating and mitigating factors and the additional aggravating factor 
that Watson had committed multiple violations, Watson’s testimony, and this 
court’s precedent, the panel recommended that Watson be suspended from the 
practice of law for one year, with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions 
proposed by the parties.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions 
of law, and recommended sanction.  We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct 
and recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
Counts One and Six: The Horton and Brown Matters 
{¶ 4} In November 2016, Yolanda Horton retained Watson to represent her 
in a personal-injury matter, and Horton and Watson executed a contingent-fee 
agreement.  To secure the costs of Horton’s related medical treatment, Horton and 
Watson also signed a letter of protection granting Chagrin Medical Center a lien 
against the proceeds of any settlement or trial disposition in Horton’s personal-
injury case. 
January Term, 2022 
 
3 
{¶ 5} In January 2018, Watson settled Horton’s case for $10,000.  He did 
not prepare a closing statement detailing the distribution of those proceeds, nor did 
he timely satisfy Chagrin Medical Center’s $3,353 lien against the proceeds.  In 
addition, Watson has stipulated that he failed to promptly satisfy a similar lien 
relating to medical services provided to another client, Reginald Brown. 
{¶ 6} The board found that Watson violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(c)(2) 
(requiring a lawyer entitled to compensation under a contingent-fee agreement to 
prepare a closing statement to be signed by the lawyer and the client that details the 
calculation of the lawyer’s compensation and any costs and expenses deducted from 
the judgment or settlement) in the Horton matter and that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that a client 
or a third party is entitled to receive) in both the Horton and Brown matters.  We 
adopt these findings of misconduct. 
Counts Two through Five: The Middlebrooks and Williams Matters 
{¶ 7} At various times in 2016 and 2017, Watson agreed to represent four 
other clients in personal-injury matters.  He has admitted that he failed to act with 
reasonable diligence on behalf of those clients and that he failed to reasonably 
communicate with them. 
{¶ 8} One of the clients, Trudie Middlebrooks, had had frequent 
conversations with Watson’s staff, who assured her that Watson was working on 
her case, but those communications diminished over time to the point that she “gave 
up” on the matter.  The insurance company involved in that matter denied Trudie’s 
claim, stating that it was not liable for her injury.  Watson failed to file a lawsuit on 
Trudie’s behalf before the statute of limitations on her claim elapsed, and he did 
not tell her that he was no longer working on her case. 
{¶ 9} Although Watson filed complaints on behalf of two of the other 
clients, Trudi-Faith and Shafonte Middlebrooks, those cases were dismissed for 
failure of service and Watson did not refile them.  He also did not inform Trudi-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
Faith and Shafonte that their cases had been dismissed until after their claims were 
time-barred and relator had commenced its investigation into his misconduct.  In 
November 2020, he paid each of them $2,500. 
{¶ 10} Watson rejected a $5,000 settlement offer on behalf of another client, 
Tiffane Williams, but he never filed a lawsuit on her behalf.  In December 2019, he 
informed Williams that the statute of limitations on her claims had elapsed, and he 
paid her $5,000. 
{¶ 11} The parties stipulated and the board found that Watson’s conduct 
with respect to each of these four clients violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a 
lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client) and 1.4(a)(3) 
(requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the 
client’s matter), and that his conduct with respect to each of the Middlebrooks 
clients also violated Prof.Cond.R. 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).  We adopt these findings of misconduct. 
Count Eight: Client-Trust-Account Records 
{¶ 12} Watson has admitted that he failed to maintain proper client-trust-
account records for each client and that he failed to perform monthly reconciliations 
of his client trust account.  He admitted and the board found that this conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for each 
client that sets forth the name of the client, the date, amount, and source of all funds 
received on behalf of the client, and the current balance for each client) and 
1.15(a)(5) (requiring a lawyer to perform and retain a monthly reconciliation of the 
funds held in the lawyer’s client trust account).  We adopt these findings of 
misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the attorney violated, the 
January Term, 2022 
 
5 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 14} Just two aggravating factors are present—Watson engaged in a 
pattern of misconduct and committed multiple offenses.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(B)(3) and (4). 
{¶ 15} As for mitigating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found 
that Watson has no prior disciplinary record, did not act with a dishonest or selfish 
motive, made a timely, good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify the 
consequences of his misconduct, cooperated in relator’s investigation, and 
submitted evidence of his good character and reputation.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(1) through (5).  The board emphasized that Watson was very cooperative 
during the disciplinary process, accepted responsibility for his misconduct, and 
exhibited an open, sincere, and contrite attitude.  Watson explained during his 
hearing testimony that when he expanded his primarily criminal-law practice to 
include personal-injury practice, he did not establish the procedures necessary to 
ensure proper and timely representation of all his clients.  He stated that he had 
made staffing and office-procedure changes to prevent these issues from 
reoccurring and to ensure that he provides competent and ethical representation to 
his civil-law clients going forward.  The board found Watson’s testimony to be 
sincere and persuasive and noted that Watson had “submitted very strong letters of 
support attesting to his good character and reputation.” 
{¶ 16} In addition, Watson paid Chagrin Medical Center $28,632 to honor 
the letters of protection that he had issued with respect to each of the clients 
involved in this case and two others—including clients for whom there was no 
financial recovery due to his own neglect. 
{¶ 17} The board adopted the parties’ joint recommendation that Watson be 
suspended from the practice of law for one year, with the entire suspension stayed 
on the conditions that he (1) complete six hours of continuing legal education 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
(“CLE”) focused on law-office and client-trust-account management, in addition to 
the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, (2) serve a one-year term of monitored probation 
in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21), and (3) commit no further misconduct. 
{¶ 18} In support of that recommendation, the board relied primarily on this 
court’s decision in Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Rosett, 154 Ohio St.3d 117, 2018-
Ohio-3861, 111 N.E.3d 1166.  Rosett had neglected five separate client matters, 
failed to maintain required client-trust-account records, and failed to adequately 
protect client funds held in her client trust account.  Id. at ¶ 17.  As for aggravating 
factors, she had a prior brief attorney-registration suspension and committed 
multiple offenses.  Id. at ¶ 2, 13.  Mitigating factors included the absence of a 
dishonest or selfish motive, Rosett’s timely, good-faith efforts to rectify the 
consequences of her misconduct, and evidence of her good character.  Id. at ¶ 13.  
We suspended her from the practice of law for one year and stayed the suspension 
in its entirety on conditions almost identical to those recommended here.  Id. at 
¶ 17. 
{¶ 19} The board also found that its recommended sanction was consistent 
with the sanction we imposed for similar misconduct in five other cases.  For 
example, in Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Yakubek, 142 Ohio St.3d 455, 2015-Ohio-
1570, 32 N.E.3d 440, ¶ 2, 15-16, we imposed a conditionally stayed one-year 
suspension on an attorney who had engaged in a pattern of neglect regarding four 
separate client matters, failed to reasonably communicate with those clients, and 
failed to return two unearned fees until after those clients had filed grievances 
against her.  And in Disciplinary Counsel v. Peters, 158 Ohio St.3d 360, 2019-
Ohio-5219, 142 N.E.3d 672, ¶ 20-21, we imposed a conditionally stayed one-year 
suspension on an attorney who had neglected and provided incompetent 
representation to two separate clients.  Peters missed the statute of limitations for 
the client’s claims in one of those cases but agreed to make restitution equal to the 
client’s damages, id. at ¶ 6-7, 15—though in contrast to Watson, Peters had not 
January Term, 2022 
 
7 
made the payment by the time of his disciplinary hearing, see id. at ¶ 5.  Peters also 
failed to notify one of the affected clients that he had received funds belonging to 
the client, failed to deposit those funds into his client trust account, and failed to 
reasonably communicate with that client.  Id. at ¶ 20.  We suspended Yakubek and 
Peters for one year but stayed the suspensions in their entirety on conditions 
comparable to those recommended by the board in this case. 
{¶ 20} After reviewing the record in this case and our precedent, we agree 
that a one-year suspension, stayed in its entirety on the conditions recommended 
by the board, is the appropriate sanction for Watson’s misconduct. 
{¶ 21} Accordingly, Myron Parnell Watson is suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for one year, stayed in its entirety on the conditions that he (1) 
complete six hours of CLE focused on law-office and client-trust-account 
management, in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, (2) serve a one-year 
term of monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(21), with the monitoring 
focused on law-office and client-trust-account management, and (3) commit no 
further misconduct.  If Watson fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the 
stay will be lifted and he will serve the entire one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed 
to Watson. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, STEWART, and 
BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
DONNELLY, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
Christopher J. Klasa, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Donald C. Williams, for respondent. 
_________________