[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mickens, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-8022.]

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 . 2016-O HIO -8022
D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v. M ICKENS . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mickens, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-8022.] Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—Public reprimand. (No. 2016-0852—Submitted August 17, 2016—Decided December 8, 2016.)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Professi onal Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2015-051.

_______________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Charles Gary Mickens of Youngstown, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0052024, was admitted to the pr actice of law in Ohio in 1991. In a February 18, 2016 amended complaint, rela tor, disciplinary counsel, alleged that Mickens violated several pr ofessional-conduct rules by ne glecting a probate matter,S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 failing to reasonably communicate with the fiduciary for the probate estate, and failing to advise his clients that he did not carry malpractice insurance. {¶ 2} The parties submitted stipulati ons of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors and re commended a sanction, and they agreed to dismiss an allegation that Mickens failed to provide competent representation in the probate matter. The panel of the Bo ard of Professional Conduct appointed to hear the matter granted the parties’ joint motion to waive the hearing. Both the panel and board adopted the parties’ stipulations and their recommendation that Mickens be publicly reprima nded for his misconduct. {¶ 3} We adopt the board’s findings of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors and agree that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction
for Mickens’s misconduct.
Misconduct {¶ 4} In September 2011, James Harris (“Harris”) hired Mickens to represent him in connection w ith the probate estate of hi s brother, Jonathan Harris, which had been opened in the Cuyahoga County Probate Court on July 3, 2002. As a result of Mickens’s efforts, the proba te court appointed Harris as successor fiduciary of the estate in April 2012. Bu t the court removed him from that post in
December 2012 after he failed to file a certifi cate stating that all persons entitled to notice of the probate of his brother’s will had received notice, waived notice, or had
not been notified because their names or places of residence were not known and could not be obtained with reasonable diligence, see R.C. 2107.19. Mickens successfully moved the court to reinstate Ha rris as fiduciary, explaining that he had failed to properly complete a request fo r service by publication. But the court removed Harris as fiduciary once again in April 2013, based on his failure to file a
final account of the estate. The court also denied Mickens’s May 2013 motion to
have Harris reinstated.January Term, 2016

3 {¶ 5} Mickens never informed Harris that the final account had not been filed or that Harris had once again been re moved from his role as fiduciary of the estate. Instead, Harris learned of his removal in September 2014, when he looked
at the case docket and discovered that the court had appointed a successor fiduciary. {¶ 6} In his will, Jonathan Harris had bequeathed certain real property to his four surviving daughters. But Micken s did not file the required certificate of transfer in the Trumbull County Recorder’s Office to effectuate the bequest, nor did he notify his client of his failure. As a result of his failure and an existing tax foreclosure order against the real property, the land was transferred to the Trumbull County Land Reutilization Cor poration in October 2014. Mickens did not inform Harris of this event, which Harris discovered when he examined the case docket in
November 2014. {¶ 7} In addition, Mickens did not carry professional liability insurance during his entire 24 years of legal practice and failed to provide his clients with
written notice of that fact as required by Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c). {¶ 8} On these facts, the parties stipulat ed and the board found that Mickens violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), and 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not maintain professional liability insurance and obtain a signed acknowledgment of that notice from the client). {¶ 9} We adopt the parties’ s tipulations and the board’s findings of fact and
misconduct.
Sanction {¶ 10} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider several relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed in similar

cases. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(A).S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 {¶ 11} The board recommends that we publicly reprimand Mickens for his misconduct. In support of this recommenda tion, the board discussed three cases in which we publicly reprim anded attorneys under similar facts. First, in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ryan , 143 Ohio St.3d 73, 2015-Ohio-2069, 34 N.E.3d 120, we publicly reprimanded an attorney who neglected two client matters by failing to timely file documents on behalf of her clients and failing to reasonably communicate with those clients. The only aggravating fact ors present were a pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses. Id. at ¶ 4. In contrast, mitigating factors included the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, Ryan’s cooperative attitude toward the di sciplinary proceedings, and evidence of her good character and reputation. Id. {¶ 12} Similarly, in Akron Bar Assn. v. Freedman , 128 Ohio St.3d 497, 2011-Ohio-1959, 946 N.E.2d 753, we publicly re primanded an attorney who failed to pursue a bankruptcy on behalf of a marri ed couple who had retained him, failed to reasonably communicate with those clients about their legal matters, failed to advise them in writing or otherwise that they might be entitled to part or all of their $3,500 flat fee if he did not complete the representation, and faile d to advise them that he did not carry professional liability insurance. No aggravating factors were present, and mitigating factors included nearly 30 years of practice with no prior discipline, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, Freedman’s acknowledgement of his errors and willingne ss to apologize to his clients for his misconduct, his full and free disclosure to the board, and evidence of his good character and reputation. Id. at ¶ 8. {¶ 13} Lastly, in Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Johnson , 123 Ohio St.3d 65, 2009-Ohio-4178, 914 N.E.2d 180, we publicly reprimanded an attorney who not only failed to respond to an opposing party’s discovery requests and a motion for summary judgment but also failed to appear for a final pretrial hearing and failed to inform the affected client that she did not carry professional liability insurance.January Term, 2016

5 The sole aggravating factor was that Johnson had neglected a series of responsibilities toward her client. Id. at ¶ 12. But mitigating factors included the absence of a prior disciplinary record, Johnson’s cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings, her admission of and apology for her ethical breaches, and her deep remorse for the consequences to her client. Id. at ¶ 11. {¶ 14} Mickens’s misconduct—his failure to take required actions on
behalf of his client , failure to keep his client apprised about significant developments in the client’s legal matter, and failure to inform his client that he did not carry professional liability insura nce—is similar to the misconduct committed
in Ryan , Freedman , and Johnson . The aggravating and mitigating factors present in this case are also comparable to those present in the cases cited by the board. The parties stipulated and the board found that just one aggravating factor is present here—that Mickens committed multiple offenses. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(4). Mitigating factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a selfish or dishonest motive, Mickens’s full and free disclosure to the board and cooperative attitude in the di sciplinary proceedings, and evidence of his good character and reputation apart from the charged misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (2), (4), and (5). The board also noted that the transfer of the decedent’s land to the Trumbull County La nd Reutilization Corporation may have
been inevitable because the successor fiduc iary appointed after Harris’s removal was unable to locate any of the estate’s beneficiaries and taxes continued to accrue.
But the board concluded that those circumstances did not excuse Mickens’s failure to file a certificate of transfer or his failure to keep Harris apprised of significant developments in the case. {¶ 15} Having considered Mickens’s misconduct, the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed for comparable misconduct, we agree that a public repr imand will adequately protect the public
from future harm.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 {¶ 16} Accordingly, Charles Gary Mickens is publicly reprimanded for the
conduct described herein. Co sts are taxed to Mickens. Judgment accordingly.
P FEIFER , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and O’D ONNELL , J., dissent and would remand the cause
to the Board of Professional Conduct to c onsider increasing the severity of the sanction imposed upon the respondent.

_________________ Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. Charles Gary Mickens, pro se.

_________________