[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 337, 2009-Ohio-764.]

CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. DAVIS. 

[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 337, 2009-Ohio-764.]

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Default — Multiple violations of rules 

governing the practice of law — Indefinite license suspension. 

(No. 2008-1774 — Submitted November 19, 2008 — Decided 

March 18, 2009.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-004. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Dwight E. Davis of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, 

Attorney Registration No. 0029972, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 

1977. 

{¶ 2} Respondent did not timely register for the 2007-2009 attorney 

registration biennium and was suspended on December 3, 2007. He was 

reinstated to the practice of law on February 22, 2008. 

{¶ 3} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 

recommends that we suspend respondent’s license indefinitely based upon the 

findings that he engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to 

practice law, neglected an entrusted legal matter, intentionally failed to carry out a 

contract of employment, failed to promptly deliver papers and funds belonging to 

a client, intentionally failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client, and failed to 

cooperate in a disciplinary investigation. We agree that respondent committed 

professional misconduct as found by the board and that an indefinite suspension is 

appropriate. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

{¶ 4} Relator, Cleveland Bar Association, charged respondent with 18 

counts of professional misconduct.1 Respondent received notice of the complaint 

but did not answer, and relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). 

A master commissioner appointed by the board granted the motion, made findings 

of misconduct, and recommended an indefinite suspension. The board adopted 

the master commissioner’s findings and recommendation. 

Misconduct 

A. The Jones and Serra Grievance 

{¶ 5} In August 2005, Bruce A. Jones and Edward D. Serra retained 

respondent to file an action to quiet title to a piece of land. Respondent told Jones 

and Serra that the work could be completed in six months, and Serra paid 

respondent $1,000 to retain his services. In February 2006, Jones unsuccessfully 

attempted to contact respondent. In May 2006, Jones and Serra retained new 

counsel, who informed them that no one had made an attempt to quiet title to the 

property. On May 22, 2006, Jones and Serra’s new counsel requested that 

respondent refund their $1,000 retainer. Respondent never returned the retainer to 

Jones or Serra. 

B. The Scales Grievance 

{¶ 6} In May 2006, Alvin W. Scales paid respondent $500 to represent 

his daughter-in-law, Mercedes Chisolm, in a juvenile court matter. Prior to 

Chisolm’s court date of July 12, 2006, Scales learned that respondent had suffered 

a stroke and would not be able to represent Chisolm. When Scales spoke with 

respondent on July 11, 2006, they agreed that respondent would return $400 of 

 

1. Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before 

and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 

supersede the Code of Professional Responsibility. Though it may specify both the former and 

current rule, one allegation comprises but a single ethical violation. Disciplinary Counsel v. 

Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31, fn. 1. 
January Term, 2009 

3 

the $500 retainer, with respondent keeping $100 for his initial meeting with 

Chisolm. Respondent never returned any money to Scales. 

C. The Seymour Grievance 

{¶ 7} In November 2005, Josephine Seymour paid respondent $2,500 to 

represent her in a matter against her insurance company and in a second matter 

involving her impounded automobile. Respondent assured Seymour that she had 

a good case against her insurance company and also told her that he had filed an 

action for replevin to regain possession of her car. Seymour does not know 

whether respondent ever did any work on her behalf. When Seymour learned that 

respondent had suffered a stroke, she attempted to contact him, without success. 

On October 20, 2006, Seymour sent respondent a certified letter discharging him 

and asking him to return her files and refund her retainer. When she received no 

response, she sent a second letter on February 7, 2007. Seymour never received 

her file or her retainer. 

D. The Johnson Grievance 

{¶ 8} In 2002, Virginia D. Johnson retained attorney Otha Jackson to 

represent her in a personal injury lawsuit. Upon Jackson’s resignation from the 

practice of law, Johnson’s case file was given to respondent. Respondent told 

Johnson that her case would not proceed until she had completed physical 

therapy. Upon completing physical therapy in June 2005, Johnson made several 

attempts to reach respondent. When she was unsuccessful, she made several 

attempts to recover possession of her file from respondent’s office. Respondent 

has failed to turn over Johnson’s file and has not communicated with her about 

her case. 

{¶ 9} After filing a grievance with the Cleveland Bar Association, 

Johnson discovered that a lawsuit had been filed on her behalf in 2002 and had 

been voluntarily dismissed by respondent on July 5, 2003. Respondent did not 

inform Johnson that the case had been filed or dismissed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

E. Failure to Cooperate 

{¶ 10} Respondent has failed to cooperate in the investigation of the 

complaints in violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). Between October 2006 and 

December 2007, relator sent respondent a series of letters asking for written 

responses to the claims against him. While the certified letters were all either 

delivered or returned as undeliverable, none of the letters sent via regular mail 

were returned as refused, unclaimed, or otherwise undelivered. 

{¶ 11} On July 2, 2007, respondent appeared in relator’s offices. He 

informed General Counsel K. Ann Zimmerman that he had suffered a stroke in 

June 2006, which paralyzed the right side of his body. He said that he intended to 

refund money to Jones and Scales and that he would work with the other clients to 

resolve their grievances. 

{¶ 12} Despite all of the correspondence that was sent to respondent over 

a period of months, respondent has never provided a written response, produced 

his client files, or made any kind of restitution. The board found that respondent’s 

conduct with regard to the grievances described above violated the following 

provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Rules of Professional 

Conduct, and the Rules for the Government of the Bar: DR 1-102(A)(6) 

(engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 

6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (intentionally 

failing to seek the lawful objective of his client), 7-101(A)(2) (intentionally 

failing to carry out a contract of employment), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to 

promptly deliver to a client the papers and funds belonging to the client), 

Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) (failing to comply as soon as practicable with reasonable 

requests for information from the client), 1.15(d) (failing to promptly notify his 

client upon receiving funds or other property in which the client has an interest), 

8.1(b) (in response to a demand for information from an admission or disciplinary 

authority, failing to disclose a material fact or knowingly failing to respond), and 
January Term, 2009 

5 

8.4(h) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice 

law), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (neglecting to assist or testify in an investigation or 

hearing). 

{¶ 13} We agree with the board’s findings. 

Sanction 

{¶ 14} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 

relevant factors, including the duties violated by the lawyer in question 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)(1) and (2) of the Rules and Regulations Governing 

Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 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. 

{¶ 15} Two mitigating circumstances are present: respondent’s previous 

disciplinary record involved attorney-registration noncompliance only, and he has 

suffered a stroke. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B) (in determining the sanction, the board 

shall consider all relevant factors). However, we note that while respondent 

indicated to General Counsel Zimmerman that he had suffered a stroke in June 

2006, his failure to cooperate with the investigation prevented the board from 

determining the extent to which the stroke affected his ability to practice law. We 

also note that most of the conduct resulting in grievances took place before June 

2006. 

{¶ 16} At least six of the nine aggravating factors set forth in BCGD 

Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) are present here: (c) a pattern of misconduct, (d) multiple 

offenses, (e) lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process, (g) refusal to 

acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, (h) the vulnerability and 

resulting harm to his victims, and (i) failure to make restitution. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

{¶ 17} A lawyer’s neglect of legal matters and failure to cooperate in the 

ensuing disciplinary investigation generally warrants an indefinite suspension 

from the practice of law in Ohio. See Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Verbiski (1999), 86 

Ohio St.3d 627, 628, 716 N.E.2d 702 (lawyer suspended indefinitely for keeping 

her client’s retainer after failing to perfect service in a divorce proceeding). 

Respondent similarly neglected several of his clients and failed to refund retainers 

for work he did not perform. His misconduct and failure to cooperate in the 

disciplinary investigation warrant this sanction. 

{¶ 18} Respondent is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in 

Ohio. 

{¶ 19} Costs are taxed to respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 K. Ann Zimmerman and Heather M. Zirke, for relator. 

______________________