[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 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 . 2015-O HIO -4337
L ORAIN C OUNTY B AR A SSOCIATION v. N ELSON

. [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 ma tter and failure to communicate

― Public reprimand. (No. 2015-0301—Submitted April 14, 2015—Decided October 22, 2015.)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Professi onal Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2014-003.

_______________________ Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} Respondent, Kenneth Alle n Nelson II of Avon Lake, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0075834, was admitted to the pr actice of law in Ohio in 2003. In February 2014, relator, the Lorain County Bar Association, charged him with violating the Rules of Prof essional Conduct for allegedly neglecting a single clientS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 matter. Upon review of the parties’ stipulations and w itness testimony at the panel hearing, the Board of Prof essional Conduct issued a repo rt finding that Nelson had engaged in the charged misconduct and re commending 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 reta ined Nelson to pursue a personalinjury claim on her behalf. Although he met with Martinez twice to discuss the claim, Nelson failed to respond to multip le e-mail and tele phone 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 ev entually dismissed the lawsuit—again, without Martinez’s knowledge or consent—an d 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 afte r their attorney-client relationship ended,
he failed to return Martinez’s case file, as she had requested. {¶ 3} In March 2013, Martinez, through he r daughter, filed a grievance against Nelson. Although Nelson communicated with relator by telephone, he did not timely respond in writing to multiple le tters from relator requesting a response to the grievance. However, when he received relator’s notice of intent to file a professional-misc onduct 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 pr ovide competent representation to a client), 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act w ith reasonable diligence in representing aJanuary Term, 2015

3 client), 1.4(a)(1) through (4) (requiring a la wyer 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 c lient’s objectives, to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, and to comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests fo r 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 la wyer, as part of the termination of representation, to deliver to th e client all papers and prope rty 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 disciplinar y investigation). We agree with these findings of
misconduct.
Sanction {¶ 5} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider several relevant factors, including the ethi cal 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 aggrava ting and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13). However, because each disciplin ary 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 coope rate in the disciplinary pr ocess 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 motiv e; he did not profit, gain, or experience any benefit as a result of the misconduct; the violations did not involve fraud,S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 dishonesty, or self-dealing; his misconduct adversely affected only one client, and therefore there was no pattern of negl ect; and he accepted responsibility for his
misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) and (2). {¶ 7} To support its recommended sancti on, 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 communicat e 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 hi s client, and failed to respond to relator’s letters of inquiry rega rding 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 Ne lson’s misconduct fell somewhere between the attorney misconduct in Godles and Boulger . The board acknowledged that Nelson had initially faile d 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 a ttorney-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 im posed in comparable cases, we adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and recomme nded sanction. Accordingly, Kenneth Allen Nelson II is publicly reprimanded for the misconduct described herein. Costs
are taxed to Nelson. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , and O’N EILL , JJ., concur.

_________________ Cook & Nicol, L.L.C., and D. Chris Cook, for relator. Kenneth Allen Nelson II, pro se.

_________________