[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ernst, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-3900.]

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 De cisions, 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.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2018-O HIO -3900
W ARREN C OUNTY B AR A SSOCIATION v. E RNST . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ernst, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-3900.] Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client— Public reprimand. (No. 2018-0256—Submitted February 27, 2018—Decided September 27, 2018.)

O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Professi onal Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2017-043.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, David Edward Ernst, of Lebanon, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0029675, was admitted to th e practice of law in Ohio in 1985. {¶ 2} In a formal complaint certified to the Board of Pr ofessional Conduct on September 14, 2017, relator, Warren County Bar Association, charged ErnstS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 with several ethical violations based on his neglect of a client’s legal matter, failure to reasonably communicate with the client, and failure to deposit the client’s
retainer into his client tr ust account. A panel of the boa rd considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement. See Gov.Bar R. V(16). {¶ 3} The parties stipulated that in February 2013, Ernst’s personal friend and client, Joshua Berry—an Army vete ran who suffered from posttraumatic stress
disorder—took his own life. Later that month, Joshua’s father, Howard Berry,
retained Ernst to settle Jo shua’s estate and paid a retainer of $2,500 by check. {¶ 4} After learning that Joshua had a life-insurance policy and that Joshua’s daughter was the named benefici ary, Howard asked Ernst to establish a trust to preserve the proceeds for Howard’s granddaughter. Ernst took no action to file a claim for the insurance proceeds and took little action to settle Joshua’s estate. Over a four-year period, Ernst prepared some probate forms and had Howard execute them, but no estate was ever ope ned. Throughout this time, Howard had contacted Ernst by telephone and e-mail on multiple occasions inquiring into the status of the estate and requesting that some action be taken. Although Howard requested weekly status updates, Ernst did not provide them. {¶ 5} In January 2017, Howard terminat ed Ernst’s representation and demanded a refund of his $2,500 retainer. When Ernst refunded the retainer in full,
he discovered that he had mis takenly deposited the retainer check into his operating
account instead of his client trust account. Moreover, Ernst had given Howard only one billing statement, dated January 26, 2017, which stated that Ernst had completed 10.65 hours of legal services. {¶ 6} After the error regarding the erroneous deposit came to light, and given the concerns about the lack of b illing statements, Ernst has purchased and implemented new software to automate hi s trust-account bookkeeping. He has also engaged his law firm’s accountant to inspect the trust-account records, ensure thatJanuary Term, 2018

3 the appropriate funds are present in the trus t account, and verify that the records are properly entered into the new software program. {¶ 7} The parties agree that Ernst’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(2), (3), and (4) (requiring a lawyer to reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished, to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, and to comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client), and 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit into a client trust account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance). They also agree that the remaining alleged violations
should be dismissed. {¶ 8} The parties stipulated that no aggravating factors are present and that mitigating factors include the absence of prior discipline, the absence of a selfish or dishonest motive, Ernst’s timely, good-fa ith effort to make restitution, his full and free disclosure and cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceeding, and evidence of his good character and reputation. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B) and (C)(1) through (5). {¶ 9} The board recommends that we a dopt the parties’ consent-todiscipline agreement and publicly reprima nd Ernst for his misconduct. In support of that recommendation, the board notes th at we have imposed public reprimands
for similar misconduct in Akron Bar Assn. v. Harsey , 142 Ohio St.3d 97, 2015- Ohio-965, 28 N.E.3d 86; Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rucker , 134 Ohio St.3d 282, 2012-Ohio-5642, 981 N.E.2d 866; and Disciplinary Counsel v. Dundon , 129 Ohio St.3d 571, 2011-Ohio-4199, 954 N.E.2d 1186. {¶ 10} Based on the foregoing, we agree that Ernst’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4, and 1.15(c) and that a public reprimand is the appropriate
sanction for that misconduct. We therefor e adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 {¶ 11} Accordingly, David Edward Erns t is publicly reprimanded. Costs
are taxed to Ernst. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and O’D ONNELL , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , and
D E G ENARO , JJ., concur.
D E W INE , J., not participating.

_________________ Kenneth E. Peller and Keith W. Anderson, for relator. Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson, L.P.A., and George D. Jonson, for respondent.

_________________