[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Grote , 127 Ohio St.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-4833.]

C INCINNATI B AR A SSOCIATION v . G ROTE

. [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Grote , 127 Ohio St.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-4833.] Attorney misconduct, including failing to provide competent representation, failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and failing to keep client informed — Indefinite suspension. (No. 2010-0737

⎯ Submitted July 6, 2010

⎯ Decided October 7, 2010.)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-054.

__________________ Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} Respondent, Jane M. Grote, A ttorney Registration No. 0000745, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1976. {¶ 2} Relator, Cincinnati Bar Associa tion, filed a complaint against respondent charging her with violations of the Rules of Prof essional Conduct for her behavior after she was hired by a client to handle a divorce. {¶ 3} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the case and found clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated seven Rules of Pr ofessional Conduct. The panel also dismissed one charge, finding that it was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. The panel recommended that re spondent be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio. The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction. We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommenda tion of the board and impose an indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio.
MisconductS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 {¶ 4} This case arises out of respondent ’s behavior after she was hired by a client to handle a divorce in July 2007. The client paid respondent an initial $500, and respondent informed the client th at the total fees would not exceed $1,500. There was no written fee contract an d no discussion about court costs and filing fees. {¶ 5} The client promptly gave responde nt the personal and financial information necessary to initiate the di vorce proceedings. Respondent took that information and prepared a draft sepa ration agreement and a shared-parenting plan, mailed them to the clie nt, and requested that the client review the documents and indicate any suggested changes. The c lient did so and returned the documents in January 2008. {¶ 6} After the client returned th e documents, respondent did not respond to the client; in fact, she admits that she did not communicate with the client for the rest of 2008. During that time, the client called and left messages with respondent’s secretary and on responde nt’s voicemail. In January 2009, the client sent respondent a le tter by certified mail asking about the status of the divorce. The letter also informed responde nt that the client’s husband had been selling off their assets and keeping the money and that soon there would be no assets left. Respondent admits that she received the certified letter but that she
still did not communicate with the client. {¶ 7} Receiving no response from responde nt, the client contacted the Better Business Bureau in early 2009 regarding respondent’s behavior. The
Better Business Bureau referred her to the Cincinnati Bar Association to file a grievance. The Better Business Bureau did write respondent a letter about the client’s complaint, but respondent still did not contact the client. Finally, after the Cincinnati Bar Association began investig ating the grievance filed against her, respondent sent the client a letter apologizing for her inaction and refunded the $500 retainer.January Term, 2010

3 {¶ 8} At the hearing before the panel, respondent admitted that she had not deposited the $500 retainer into an a ttorney trust account. She admitted that she did not have prof essional-liability insurance when she undertook representation of the client and did not notify the client that she did not have insurance. See Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c). Re spondent further admitted at the hearing that she still had not obtained professional-liability insurance or notified her
clients that she lacked insurance. {¶ 9} Respondent does not dispute most of the allegations in this case.
She admits that she did not do what she was hired to do and did not advise her
clients of her lack of insurance. Re spondent explained that her failure to communicate with the client began after she accidentally placed the client’s file into a pile of closed files. She explained that the neglect continued even after she realized her mistake, because at that poi nt in her life, she was busy with other matters and personal issues. When res pondent received the client’s certified letter, she realized that she had let the situation get out of hand and did not know what to do, so she did nothing. {¶ 10} Respondent does dispute the allegati on that she should have put the $500 in her trust account, arguing to the panel that she felt that it was not necessary to put the money into her trust account because she had earned the fee. But that argument is incorrect. She received the money before she did any work for the client, and therefore, it was unear ned and should have been deposited into

a trust account. {¶ 11} Respondent explained that she did not purchase professionalliability insurance and did not notify her clients that she lacked insurance, because it “was something [she] hadn’t paid that much attention to.” She explained that she continued this misconduct, even af ter the investigation into her conduct began, because she was not sure how mu ch longer she would be allowed to practice law and did not ha ve many new clients.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 {¶ 12} We agree with the board that respondent’s conduct constituted a violation of the following Rules of Professional Conduc t: Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, for failing to provide competent representati on to the client; 1.3, for failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client; 1.4(a)(2), for failing to consult with her client regarding the means by which the client’s objectives would be accomplished; 1.4(a )(3), for failing to keep the client
informed about the status of the divorce ; 1.4(a)(4), for failing to respond as soon as practicable to reasonable requests for information from the client; 1.4(c), for failing to obtain a signed acknowledgment from the client that he or she had received notice of respondent’s lack of professional-liability insurance; and 1.15(c), for failing to keep unearne d legal fees in a trust account.
Sanction {¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorn ey misconduct, we consider all relevant factors, including the ethical duties that 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. In making a final determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Bo ard of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren , 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. Because each disciplinary case is unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take
into account “all relevant factors” in determining what sanction to impose. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). {¶ 14} The primary aggravating factor in this case is that respondent has been disciplined twice in the past fo r professional misconduct. The first case involved a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), fo r conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, and a viola tion of DR 6-101(A)(3), for neglectingJanuary Term, 2010

5 legal matters entrusted to her. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Grote (1987), Disciplinary Docket No. 87-5. Respondent was warned th at if she were to be found guilty of misconduct in the future, she would be eith er suspended from the practice of law indefinitely or permanently disbarred. Id. {¶ 15} Respondent was disciplined again in 1990 for violating DR 1- 102(A)(4) and 6-101(A)(3) after she failed to pursue a client’s claim, failed to communicate with her client, and failed to advise her c lient that she had allowed the applicable statute of limitations to pass. Cincinnati Bar Assn v. Grote (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 156, 553 N.E.2d 657. {¶ 16} The harm to the client caused by respondent’s misconduct in this case, specifically the fact that the client is not yet divorced and the fact that her
husband was able to sell of f marital property while respondent did nothing, is an additional aggravating factor. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h). {¶ 17} In mitigation, the board found an abse nce of a dishonest or selfish motive. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b). Additionally, respondent cooperated fully with relator and the board throughout the proceedings. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d). Respondent admitted the mis conduct and accepts responsibility for
her actions. {¶ 18} Although respondent returned the $500 fee to the client, it was not returned in a timely fashion and was retu rned only after respondent was contacted by relator. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c). Therefore, the fact that a refund was made has little mitigating value. {¶ 19} We have stated in the past that an attorney’s failure to render legal services that he or she has been paid to complete is “tantamount to theft.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Sigall (1984), 14 Ohio St .3d 15, 17, 14 OBR 320, 470 N.E.2d 886. We have indefinitely susp ended attorneys for misconduct that demonstrates a pattern of neglect. See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Harmon (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 69, 17 OB R 134, 477 N.E.2d 629; Disciplinary Counsel v. Schiller
,S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 123 Ohio St.3d 200, 2009-Ohio-4909, 915 N.E.2d 324. In Harmon , we indefinitely suspended an attorney for neglecting two legal matters. The attorney in that case had recently been disciplined for neglecting other legal matters. In
Schiller , although the attorney had no prior di sciplinary record, we indefinitely suspended him for neglecting multiple legal matters and failing to advise clients that he did not have professional-liability insurance. {¶ 20} Even taken alone, respondent’s misconduct in this case is very serious, but in considering the two previous disciplinary cases involving respondent, we cannot help but conclude that this misc onduct is part of a pattern, bound to be repeated. The fact that res pondent did not either obtain professionalliability insurance or obtain acknowledgment s of her lack of insurance from her clients after the investigation began, when she was explicitly aware that she must do so, makes it clear that she is not motiv ated to stop this pattern of misconduct. {¶ 21} For the foregoing reasons, respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly.
B ROWN , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.

__________________ Schuh & Goldberg, L.L.P., and Richard J. Goldberg; and Clements, Mahin & Cohen, L.P.A., Co., and William E. Clements, for relator. Jane M. Grote, pro se.

______________________