[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Biviano, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4308.]

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, Oh io 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2015-O HIO -4308
T RUMBULL C OUNTY B AR A SSOCIATION v . B IVIANO . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Biviano, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4308.] Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to prom ptly return unearned portion of retainer—Public reprimand. (No. 2015-0299—Submitted April 14, 2015—Decided October 21, 2015.)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Professi onal Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2014-044.

_______________________ Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} Respondent, William Richard Biviano of Warren, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0017984, was admitted to th e practice of law in Ohio in 1974.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 {¶ 2} In a complaint filed with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 1 on June 9, 2014, relator, Trumbull County Bar Association, alleged that Biviano violated five Rules of Professiona l Conduct in concluding his representation in a child-custody matter. The parties entered into stipulations of fact, agreed that Biviano failed to pr omptly refund the unearned portion of his retainer in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.16( e), agreed that the remaining alleged violations should be dismissed, and join tly recommended that Biviano be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct. Based on the parties’ s tipulations and Biviano’s testimony, the panel made findings of f act, found that Biviano’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e), dismisse d four other alleged rule violations, and recommended that Biviano be publicly re primand for his misconduct. The board adopted the panel report in its entirety. We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and agree that a pub lic reprimand is the appr opriate sanction in this

case. Misconduct {¶ 3} Jamie Smith retained Biviano to represent her in a child-custody matter in September 2010. On January 10, 2012, Biviano sent Smith a letter stating that he understood that she had r econciled with the child’s father and requesting documentation from her so that he could close her file. Smith responded to Biviano’s corresponden ce in a January 20, 2012 e-mail and requested that he close her file and retu rn the unearned portion of her retainer. {¶ 4} On March 22, 2012, Smith again requested that Biviano close her file. He responded that day, advising her that he would close her file and that she would be contacted. Having heard nothi ng further from Biviano, Smith e-mailed him on July 24 and August 20, but she did not receive a response to either e-mail.

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.January Term, 2015

3 Consequently, she filed a grievance with relator on September 24, 2012. Biviano provided an itemized account of his b illing in the matter and returned the unearned portion of Smith’s retainer on October 5, 2012. {¶ 5} The parties stipulated and the boa rd found that Biviano violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e) by failing to prompt ly refund the unearned portion of his
retainer.
Sanction {¶ 6} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider relevant factors, including the ethical duties the lawyer violated and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli , 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. We also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13). {¶ 7} Here the parties stipulated and th e board found that the relevant mitigating factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, Biviano’ s timely good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of his misconduc t, his full and free disclosure to the board and his cooperative attitude in the proceedings, and his good character and reputation apart from the charged misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5). {¶ 8} In support of the recommended sa nction of a public reprimand, the
board cites Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kubyn , 121 Ohio St.3d 321, 2009-Ohio-1154, 903 N.E.2d 1215 (publicly reprimanding an attorney who, on his discharge from employment, failed to take reasonably pr acticable steps to protect his client’s interests and failed to promptly retu rn any unearned portion of his fee). {¶ 9} We adopt the board’s findings of f act and misconduct and agree that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction fo r Biviano’s misconduct. {¶ 10} Accordingly, William Richard Bivi ano is publicly reprimanded for
his misconduct. Costs are taxed to Biviano.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

_________________ Flevares Law Firm, L.L.C., and William M. Flevares, for relator. Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A ., and Jonathan E. Coughlan, for respondent.

_________________