[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stubbs, 128 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-553.]

D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . S TUBBS

. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Stubbs, 128 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-553.] Attorneys — Misconduct — Failure to prope rly maintain and use a client trust account — Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation — Failure to pay client expense from settleme nt proceeds as agreed — Indefinite suspension. (No. 2010-1803 — Submitted January 4, 2011 — Decided February 15, 2011.)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-009.

__________________ Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} Respondent, SaKeya MonCheree Stubbs of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0071309, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in
1999. {¶ 2} On May 14, 2010, relator, Disciplin ary Counsel, filed an amended five-count complaint charging respondent with professiona l misconduct arising from her alleged misuse of her client trust account, failure to maintain adequate
records of client funds held in her trus t account, failure to pay certain client expenses from settlement proceeds as ag reed, and failure to respond to the resulting disciplinary investigations. {¶ 3} Relator attempted to se rve respondent with a copy of its amended complaint by certified mail at her office address, but the postal service returned that mailing unclaimed. A second certified mailing to a new address provided by the postal service was also returned unc laimed. On July 26, 2010, the clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted servic e on respondent’s behalf, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). Respondent did not answer the complaint orS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 otherwise appear in the proceeding, and relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). {¶ 4} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Disciplin e granted relator’s motion, making findings of fact
and misconduct and reco mmending that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and directed to make restitution to her client. The board adopted the master commissioner’s report in its entirety. For the reasons that follow, we accept these findings of f act and misconduct, adopt the board’s recommendation, indefinitely suspend re spondent from the practice of law in Ohio, and order her to pay restitution to the affected client.
Misconduct {¶ 5} The master commissioner found that in November 2008, relator attempted to communicate with respondent regarding overdrafts on her client trust account. Although several letters were delivered to respondent’s office via certified mail and personal service, re spondent did not respond. She missed a scheduled deposition, even though a subpoena for her appearance had been delivered to her secretary. Although she later appeared and testified, she did not provide all the documents that she was or dered to produce, including her client ledgers, canceled checks, and her trust ac count check register. She admitted that
she had failed to maintain accurate reco rds for her trust account, that she had deposited earned fees and payments for c ourt-appointed cases into that account, and that she had used the account to pay pe rsonal and office expenses. The record
further demonstrates that her trust a ccount was overdrawn or checks were returned for insufficient funds at least 17 times from October 2008 to August
2009. {¶ 6} The master commissioner also found that after settling a client’s personal-injury claim in February 2009, re spondent agreed to pay certain of the
client’s medical bills from the settleme nt funds. She retained $5,489 of theJanuary Term, 2011

3 settlement proceeds to pay those bills but la ter advised the client that she had used the money to pay her own bills. Although she promised to return the money to the client by January 4, 2010, she did not do so. She also failed to respond to relator’s investigation of the client’s grievance. {¶ 7} Based upon these facts, the master commissioner concluded that respondent’s conduct with respect to the management of her client trust account violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for each client on whose behalf funds are held) and (a )(3) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for the lawyer’s client trust acc ount setting forth the name of the account, the date, amount, and client affected by e ach credit and debit, and the balance in the account), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawy er from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice) and (h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law). Her handling of her clie nt settlement proceeds vi olated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver f unds or other property that the client is entitled to receive) and 8.4(c) (prohibitin g a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), (d), and (h). Respondent’s failure to coope rate in each of the resulting investigations also violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and (h) as we ll as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation). {¶ 8} Citing a lack of clear and convincing evidence, the master commissioner made no findings regardin g allegations that respondent had engaged in improper fee sharing or th at she had failed to pay the medical expenses of other clients. {¶ 9} The board accepted the master commissioner’s findings of fact and
misconduct and dismissed the allegations that were not supported by clear and convincing evidence. See Gov.Bar R. V( 6)(K). We also accept these findings.
SanctionS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 {¶ 10} In recommending that we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio, the master commissioner and board considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of re spondent’s case. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). They cited as aggravating factors respondent’s prior disciplinary history, including a six-month stayed suspension and one year of monitored probation, which had been imposed after respondent had falsified a docum ent in an attempt
to convince the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles that she had been properly
insured at the time she had received a traf fic citation, and two separate attorneyregistration suspensions. S ee BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a); Columbus Bar Assn.
v. Stubbs , 109 Ohio St.3d 446, 2006-Ohio-2818, 848 N.E.2d 843; In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Stubbs , 116 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2007-Ohio-6463, 877 N.E.2d 305; In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Stubbs , 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256. They also found that she had engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multip le offenses, failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, caused harm to a vulnerable client, and failed to make restitution to that client. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), (h), and (i). Although the master commissioner a nd board acknowledged respondent’s previous participation in the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, they observed that she was no longer an active particip ant in the program and had produced no
evidence that she suffered from a mental di sability. Therefore, they found that no mitigating factors were present. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2). {¶ 11} Respondent has breached her duties to her clients, the public, and the legal profession by failing to maintain accurate records of the funds held in her client trust account, failin g to promptly deliver funds that a client was entitled to receive, and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary process. We have previously recognized that an indefinite suspension is an appropriate sanction for a lawyer who has failed to maintain accura te records of the funds held in her client trust account, failed to promptly de liver funds that a client is entitled toJanuary Term, 2011

5 receive, failed to provide diligent and competent legal representation to her clients, and failed to coope rate in the resulting discip linary investigation. See
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Torian , 106 Ohio St.3d 14, 2005-Ohio-3216, 829 N.E.2d 1210, at ¶ 17. {¶ 12} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and considered the sa nctions imposed for comparable conduct, we agree that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case. {¶ 13} Accordingly, SaKeya MonCheree St ubbs is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio, and any petition for reinstatement is must include proof that she has paid restitution to the affected client. Costs are taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.

__________________ Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary C ounsel, and Robert R. Berger, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

______________________