[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nelson, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4337.] 

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 Decisions, 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. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-4337

LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. NELSON. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nelson, Slip Opinion No. 

2015-Ohio-4337.] 

Attorneys―Misconduct―Multiple violations in representation of single client, 

including neglect of client matter and failure to communicate―Public 

reprimand. 

(No. 2015-0301—Submitted April 14, 2015—Decided October 22, 2015.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 

Court, No. 2014-003. 

_______________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Kenneth Allen Nelson II of Avon Lake, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0075834, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2003. In 

February 2014, relator, the Lorain County Bar Association, charged him with 

violating the Rules of Professional Conduct for allegedly neglecting a single client 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

matter. Upon review of the parties’ stipulations and witness testimony at the panel 

hearing, the Board of Professional Conduct issued a report finding that Nelson had 

engaged in the charged misconduct and recommending that we publicly reprimand 

him. We accept the board’s findings of misconduct and agree with the 

recommended sanction. 

Misconduct

{¶ 2} In July 2008, Mary Martinez retained Nelson to pursue a personalinjury claim on her behalf. Although he met with Martinez twice to discuss the 

claim, Nelson failed to respond to multiple e-mail and telephone messages from 

Martinez’s daughter requesting updates on the matter, and he acknowledged that 

he had failed to consult with Martinez about the management and status of the case. 

Indeed, Nelson filed a complaint without notifying Martinez, and during the 

pendency of the matter, he failed to conduct any discovery or to respond to the 

defendant’s discovery request. Nelson eventually dismissed the lawsuit—again, 

without Martinez’s knowledge or consent—and because he did not timely refile the 

complaint, she lost the ability to pursue her claims. Additionally, Nelson failed to 

inform Martinez in writing that during the course of his representation, his 

malpractice insurance had lapsed, and after their attorney-client relationship ended, 

he failed to return Martinez’s case file, as she had requested. 

{¶ 3} In March 2013, Martinez, through her daughter, filed a grievance 

against Nelson. Although Nelson communicated with relator by telephone, he did 

not timely respond in writing to multiple letters from relator requesting a response 

to the grievance. However, when he received relator’s notice of intent to file a 

professional-misconduct complaint, he became fully cooperative in the disciplinary 

process. 

{¶ 4} Based on this conduct, the board found that Nelson had violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a 

client), 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a 
January Term, 2015 

3

client), 1.4(a)(1) through (4) (requiring a lawyer to promptly inform the client of 

decisions that require the client’s informed consent, to reasonably consult with the 

client about the means to accomplish the client’s objectives, to keep the client 

reasonably informed about the status of the matter, and to comply as soon as 

practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client), 1.4(c) 

(requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not maintain professional 

liability insurance), 1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer, as part of the termination of 

representation, to deliver to the client all papers and property to which the client is 

entitled), and 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a 

demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation) and 

former Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (now Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G)) (requiring a lawyer to 

cooperate with a disciplinary investigation). We agree with these findings of 

misconduct. 

Sanction

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

several 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 Gov.Bar 

R. V(13). However, because each disciplinary case is unique, we are not limited to 

the factors specified in Gov.Bar R. V(13) and may take into account all relevant 

factors in determining which sanction to impose. 

{¶ 6} As aggravating factors, the board found that Nelson initially failed to 

promptly and adequately cooperate in the disciplinary process and that his client 

was vulnerable and suffered harm as a result of his conduct. See Gov.Bar R. 

V(13)(B)(5) and (8). In mitigation, the board found that Nelson has no prior 

discipline; he did not act with a selfish motive; he did not profit, gain, or experience 

any benefit as a result of the misconduct; the violations did not involve fraud, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

dishonesty, or self-dealing; his misconduct adversely affected only one client, and 

therefore there was no pattern of neglect; and he accepted responsibility for his 

misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) and (2). 

{¶ 7} To support its recommended sanction, the board primarily relied upon 

Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Godles, 128 Ohio St.3d 279, 2010-Ohio-6274, 943 N.E.2d 

988, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Boulger, 88 Ohio St.3d 325, 725 N.E.2d 1112 

(2000). Similar to the facts here, both cases involved isolated incidents of neglect 

or failure to communicate by attorneys who had no prior discipline and lacked a 

dishonest or selfish motive. In Godles, the attorney conducted little work on a 

personal-injury case, failed to communicate with his client about the management 

or status of the matter, and failed to advise his client that he lacked malpractice 

insurance. Godles at ¶ 12-14. In Boulger, the attorney neglected filings in a 

personal-injury matter, dismissed the case without informing his client, and failed 

to respond to relator’s letters of inquiry regarding grievances filed by four clients. 

Boulger at 326. We publicly reprimanded the attorney in Godles, and we issued a 

stayed six-month suspension in Boulger. As the board in this case noted, the most 

significant difference between the two cases is that the attorney in Boulger also 

failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation. 

{¶ 8} Here, the board found that Nelson’s misconduct fell somewhere 

between the attorney misconduct in Godles and Boulger. The board acknowledged 

that Nelson had initially failed to timely respond to relator’s inquiries, but the board 

also found it compelling that Nelson was ultimately “completely cooperative and 

forthcoming on all matters.” Indeed, the board noted that at the panel hearing, 

relator had indicated that it would have no serious objection if the panel dismissed 

the charges relating to Nelson’s failure to cooperate. Given these comments, the 

board concluded that Godles was “more instructive” and accordingly recommended 

a public reprimand. 
January Term, 2015 

5

{¶ 9} As we have often explained, this court is the ultimate arbiter of 

misconduct and sanctions in attorney-discipline cases, although we often accept the 

board’s conclusions “as to the propriety of an attorney’s conduct or the appropriate 

sanction, and to that extent, our decisions reflect deference to [its] expertise.” 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Kelly, 121 Ohio St.3d 39, 2009-Ohio-317, 901 N.E.2d 798, 

¶ 11. Here, we accept the board’s reasoning and therefore agree that a public 

reprimand is the appropriate sanction in this case. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 10} Having considered the ethical duties violated, the mitigating and 

aggravating factors, and the sanctions imposed in comparable cases, we adopt the 

board’s findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. Accordingly, Kenneth 

Allen Nelson II is publicly reprimanded for the misconduct described herein. Costs 

are taxed to Nelson. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Cook & Nicol, L.L.C., and D. Chris Cook, for relator. 

Kenneth Allen Nelson II, pro se. 

_________________