[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman , 107 Ohio St.3d 296, 2005-Ohio-6513.]

T OLEDO B AR A SSOCIATION v . H ICKMAN

.

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hickman , 107 Ohio St.3d 296, 2005-Ohio-6513.] Attorneys — Misconduct — Neglecting an entrusted legal matter — Engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, dis honesty, or misrepresentation — Intentionally failing to carry out cont ract of professional employment — One-year suspension, six months stayed. (No. 2005-1167 — Submitted August 23, 2005 — Decided December 28, 2005.)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-061.

__________________ Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} Respondent, Gregg D. Hickman of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0020032, was admitted to th e practice of law in Ohio in 1978. On October 11, 2004, relator, Toledo Bar Association, charged respondent in a four-count complaint with having vi olated the Code of Professional Responsibility. A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause and made finding s of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation, which the board adopted.
Misconduct {¶ 2} Relator dismissed Counts III a nd IV of the complaint, and respondent stipulated or testified to the allegations of Counts I and II.
Count I {¶ 3} In 1997, Denise and Richard Myrice Sr . retained respondent to file a lawsuit against certain medical providers for causing the death of their adult son, Chad. Respondent entered into a conti ngent-fee agreement with the Myrices;S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 however, he failed to reduce the agreement to writing in accordance with R.C.
4705.15. {¶ 4} As preparation for a wrongful-d eath action, respondent opened the estate of Chad Myrice in the Lucas County Probate Court; however, he did not file a complaint, and the statute of limitations for the action expired, barring any relief. Notwithstanding this, respondent represented to the Myrices that he had filed the wrongful-death claim in court and that medical experts were in the process of reviewing the allegations of liability. This representation was also untrue. Respondent never provided any medi cal records or other materials in the case to a medical expert for review. In fact, opening the estate was the only action respondent took on behalf of his clients, and in May 2000, the probate court closed the estate for respondent ’s failure to file an accounting. {¶ 5} In October 2003, the Myrices retained other counsel. The new attorney discovered that the wrongful-d eath action had not been filed and that their son’s estate had been closed three years earlier. Notwithstanding these facts, respondent continued to fals ely assure the Myrices that the estate was open and that the wrongful-death action was pending.
Count II {¶ 6} In 1996, prior to Chad’s death, respondent agreed to pursue a personal-injury action on beha lf of Chad and others who had been injured in a bar. Respondent also did not reduce th e contingent-fee agreement to writing for this representation as required by R.C. 4705.15. {¶ 7} Respondent filed the pe rsonal-injury claim in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas; however, he voluntarily dismissed the cause as to Chad in August 1997. Respondent la ter settled the claims of th e others injured at the bar, but he never refiled any claim for relief concerning Chad’s injury. {¶ 8} The Myrices did not consent to the dismissal of Chad’s claim, and when asked about the case, respondent fals ely represented to the Myrices that theJanuary Term, 2005

3 personal-injury action was still pending and that the estate of Chad Myrice was still open. Respondent also falsely told th e Myrices that the defendant had agreed to a $1,000 settlement that respondent was having trouble collecting. {¶ 9} In accordance with the evidence and the parties’ stipulations of misconduct, the panel and boa rd found violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonest y, or misrepresentation), 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting the neglect of an entrusted legal matter), and 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting the intentional failure to carry out a contract of employment for professional services).
Sanction {¶ 10} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel and board reviewed the mitigating and aggrava ting factors of respondent’s case. See
Section 10 of the Rules a nd Regulations Governing Pr ocedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commi ssioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). As mitigating fe atures, the panel and board found that respondent had been in practice for ov er 25 years with no prior disciplinary offenses. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). Re spondent had also cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings and expresse d remorse for his misconduct. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d). He explained that he had been a sole practitioner since 1991, working mainly in domestic relations and criminal defense, and was not familiar with medical-malpractice cases. C onceding that he should not have taken on the Myrice case, respondent promised to re fer such cases in the future. He also advised that he had recently become associated with another veteran attorney who had least 20 years of experience in domestic-relations, criminal, and bankruptcy

cases. {¶ 11} Also in mitigation, respondent sub mitted letters from two judges, a magistrate, and four atto rneys commending his character, reputation, competence, and professionalism. As one example, Judge Thomas J. Osowik of the LucasS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 County Common Pleas Court wrote that in the 14 years respondent had been appearing in his courtroom, respondent had always demonstrated “impeccable character” and was consistently a very well-prepared advocate. Judge Osowik added that respondent “often represents difficult clients who bring with them difficult and complex problems.” Fu rther, respondent acknowledged the wrongfulness of his neglect and dishonesty. {¶ 12} Against these factors, the panel and board weighed the aggravating effect of respondent’s having intenti onally misled the Myrices, whom he had represented for years, to placate them and conceal his inaction. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(A)(2)(b). Moreover, respondent had ca used this couple irreparable harm — they lost two cases to statutes of limitation, barring both the medical-malpractice claim in Count I and the personal-injur y claim in Count II. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h). The Myrices, however, have apparently received at least some compensation through a malpractice-insu rance settlement against respondent. {¶ 13} The parties jointly proposed that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year with six months stayed. Respondent’s counsel acknowledged that respondent’s case is similar to Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237, and that his violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) required an actual suspen sion absent significant extenuating or unusual circumstances. Id. The pane l and board recommended the one-year suspension with a six-month stay.
Review {¶ 14} We agree that respondent violat ed DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(2) as found by the board. We also find appropriate the one-year suspension with a six-month stay. {¶ 15} Accordingly, respondent is suspe nded from the practice of law in Ohio for one year; however, six months of this suspension are stayed on the
condition that he does not commit furt her misconduct during the suspensionJanuary Term, 2005

5 period. If respondent violates the terms of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and respondent shall serve the entire one-y ear suspension. Costs are taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly.
M OYER , C.J., R ESNICK , P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR and
O’D ONNELL , JJ., concur.
L ANZINGER , J., not participating.

__________________ David F. Cooper and Michael F. Jilek Sr., for relator. James D. Caruso, for respondent.

______________________