Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Watson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Watson, 98 Ohio St.3d 181, 2002-Ohio-7088.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WATSON. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Watson, 98 Ohio St.3d 181, 2002-Ohio-7088.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with one year stayed on 
condition that no further misconduct be committed — Sanction to be 
served consecutively to current one-year suspension — Neglect of an 
entrusted legal matter — Holding solo legal practice out to the public as 
a professional partnership — Failing to cooperate in disciplinary 
investigation. 
(No. 2002-1137 — Submitted August 27, 2002 — Decided December 26, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Count, No. 01-75. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On February 21, 2002, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged 
respondent, Michael Troy Watson of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
0029023, in an amended complaint with various violations of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause and made the 
following findings of fact and conclusions of law relative to the misconduct it 
determined respondent to have committed. 
{¶2} 
In 1997, respondent agreed to help a client obtain crime victims’ 
reparations after the client had allegedly been assaulted.  Respondent applied for 
this compensation on September 2, 1997.  Thereafter, an investigator in the 
Attorney General’s Office had to send respondent two letters and telephone him at 
least once before respondent finally forwarded to the client the authorization 
release forms needed to process the claim.  Respondent never returned the signed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
forms.  Later, in November and December 1997, another investigator sent 
respondent two letters in an attempt to get additional information about his 
client’s case.  Both of these letters requested a response by a specific date and 
warned that failure to respond might result in a recommendation to deny all or 
part of the claim for compensation.  Still, respondent did not answer. 
{¶3} 
In January 1998, the Attorney General’s Office filed a 
recommendation to deny respondent’s client claim for crime victims’ 
compensation on the grounds of failure to cooperate with law enforcement 
authorities and failure to prove economic loss.  The recommendation reported that 
despite repeated investigative inquiries, respondent had never verified his client’s 
medical expenses as required, nor had he explained why his client had not 
pursued criminal charges against her alleged assailant.  Respondent did not object 
to this recommendation.  A commissioner of the Court of Claims, Victim of 
Crimes Division, later denied the client’s claim for failure of proof. 
{¶4} 
Respondent thereafter requested attorney fees for 5.9 hours at $60 
per hour, or $354, as payment for the services he provided up until the 
commissioner’s decision.  A second commissioner considered the request for fees, 
determined that 5.9 hours were excessive, and awarded respondent fees for only 
2.35 hours at $60 per hour, or $141.  This fee request, particularly the 
representation that respondent had continued to accumulate billable hours up until 
the commissioner’s denial of his client’s claim, later caused the panel to discredit 
respondent’s explanation for neglecting the client’s case—that his client had 
reconsidered pursuing her claim for compensation.  For this neglect, the panel 
found respondent in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal 
matter). 
{¶5} 
The panel further found, based on stipulations, that respondent had 
violated DR 2-102(B) (practicing under a name that is misleading as to the 
identity and number of lawyers practicing under that name) and (C) 
January Term, 2002 
3 
(misrepresenting oneself as a member of a legal partnership).  The parties agreed 
that at all times relevant to this case, respondent maintained his law practice under 
the name of “Watson and Watson, Attorneys and Counselors at Law,” 
notwithstanding that his was a solo practice. 
{¶6} 
The remaining misconduct found by the panel occurred during 
relator’s investigation and prosecution of the preceding infractions and of another 
grievance against respondent that the panel did not consider a disciplinary 
offense.  In conducting the investigation, relator repeatedly sent requests for 
information about these grievances to respondent, many of which he flatly 
ignored.  If he did respond, it was often only after weeks of delay, or it was in 
such disjointed way that the response confounded relator’s investigation more 
than it contributed to it.  Even after relator filed its complaint, respondent did not 
comply with three subpoenas for his deposition and the production of documents, 
repeatedly waiting until the last minute to advise relator that his work schedule 
prevented his attendance.  For these acts, the panel found respondent in violation 
of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in the disciplinary process) and DR 
1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 
(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law). 
{¶7} 
Respondent’s recalcitrance eventually caused relator to file a 
motion to compel compliance with propounded interrogatories and requests for 
production of documents.  On review, the panel chair ordered respondent to 
comply with this discovery by January 11, 2002.  On that date, via facsimile 
transmission, respondent forwarded to relator answers and objections to the 
interrogatories.  His submission, however, did not include any of the documents 
referred to in the answers, nor did it include any of the documents for which 
relator had specifically asked.  Moreover, the certificate of service for this 
submission indicated that it had been sent to relator by regular mail on January 
10, 2002.  Evidence later showed that relator did not receive respondent’s answers 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
and documentation by mail until January 18, 2002, and that they arrived with the 
January 10, 2002 certificate of service in an envelope postmarked January 16, 
2002. 
{¶8} 
The misleading certificate of service turned out to be the result of a 
clerical oversight by respondent’s office staff.  Regardless, when relator had not 
received by January 16, 2002, the discovery respondent had been ordered to 
supply five days earlier, relator filed a second motion to compel and transmitted 
by facsimile notice of the motion to respondent.  It was at this time that 
respondent apparently realized that his discovery responses had not been sent as 
he had initially represented.  But notwithstanding this realization, respondent 
replied to the second motion to compel by claiming that he had produced the 
discovery as ordered and that relator was therefore attempting to perpetrate a 
“fraud upon the panel.” 
{¶9} 
Respondent subsequently acknowledged that his certificate of 
service was incorrect and was granted leave to amend the certificate to reflect the 
actual date that his discovery responses were mailed.  The panel, however, 
concluded that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in fraud, 
deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation) and (6) by misrepresenting the events 
that had occurred during discovery. 
{¶10} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel 
observed that respondent’s violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) and DR 2-102(B) and 
(C) were comparatively minor infractions.  The panel also considered as 
mitigating that respondent had agreed to rectify the problems related to his 
violations of DR 2-102(B) and (C) at the hearing and that, according to judges in 
the jurisdiction where he practices, respondent has been honest, responsible, 
competent, and professional in dealing with his clients, other counsel, and the 
courts. 
January Term, 2002 
5 
{¶11} In the panel’s view, however, these factors did little to offset the 
aggravating circumstances evident in the record and, much more important, the 
flagrant violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), (5), and (6) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  The 
aggravating circumstances included that respondent is currently serving under a 
one-year suspension of his license for previous misconduct, Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Watson, 95 Ohio St.3d 364, 2002-Ohio-2222, 768 N.E.2d 617, that his 
misconduct manifested multiple offenses, that his “evasiveness and obfuscation 
certainly bordered on dishonesty, if not crossing the line,” and that he had refused 
to acknowledge his wrongdoing.  See Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations 
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  Furthermore, the panel described 
respondent’s conduct during the disciplinary process as the perfect example of 
how not to behave: 
{¶12} “He was evasive when a straight answer would have benefited 
him.  He claimed to be too busy to provide answers to the Relator’s legitimate 
inquiries, while finding time to demand an investigation of the Relator’s counsel 
before the panel and the Supreme Court and to bring an action in prohibition 
before the Supreme Court to prohibit the formal hearing before this panel.  [See 
Watson v. Marshall, 96 Ohio St.3d 1436, 2002-Ohio-3344, 770 N.E.2d 1047.]  He 
implemented a scorched earth policy toward the Relator when cooperation would 
have been to his benefit.  Instead of admitting that his office made a mistake and 
hadn’t mailed his discovery responses when he certified that it had, he attacked 
the Relator.  He continued to represent himself even after it should have become 
apparent that he was not objective about his situation.” 
{¶13} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for two years with one year stayed on the condition that he commit 
no further disciplinary violations.  The panel also recommended that this sanction 
be served consecutively to the one-year suspension respondent is currently 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
serving.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and 
recommendation. 
{¶14} Upon review of the record, we agree with the board.  The duty to 
cooperate in disciplinary proceedings is rooted in the self-governing nature of the 
legal profession.  It requires each lawyer to ensure that the profession is properly 
regulated, even when he himself is the subject of the process.  Lake Cty. Bar Assn. 
v. Vala (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 57, 59, 693 N.E.2d 1083.  So when an attorney 
disregards or fails to cooperate in the disciplinary process, not only does he 
disserve the public and this court’s mission to protect it, he also compromises the 
profession and himself as a member of it. 
{¶15} Despite this duty, respondent attempted to thwart relator’s 
legitimate inquiries at every turn, and his constant contentiousness far exceeded 
anything that could be called professional zeal.  Accordingly, we concur that 
respondent violated the cited Disciplinary Rules and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), and we 
adopt the recommended sanction.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law for two years, with one year stayed on the condition that he 
commit no further misconduct.  This sanction is to be served consecutively to the 
one-year suspension he is currently serving.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Michael Troy Watson, pro se. 
__________________