[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Troxell, 129 Ohio St.3d 133, 2011-Ohio-3178.]

C OLUMBUS B AR A SSOCIATION v . T ROXELL

. [Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Troxell, 129 Ohio St.3d 133, 2011-Ohio-3178.] Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Multiple vi olations of the Code of Professional Conduct — Indefinite license suspension. (No. 2010-2248 — Submitted February 16, 2011 — Decided July 6, 2011.)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-007.

__________________ Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} Respondent, Richard Hollingsworth Harold Troxell of Hilliard, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0066395, wa s admitted to the practice of law in
Ohio in 1996. {¶ 2} On February 8, 2010, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a three-count complaint charging responde nt with professiona l misconduct arising from his alleged neglect of client matters, failure to provide competent representation, failure to reasonably comm unicate with his clients or respond to their demands for information, failure to give notice of, account for, and deliver funds in which a client or third person has an interest, and failure to respond to the resulting disciplinary investigations. {¶ 3} Respondent was served with rela tor’s complaint by certified mail on February 19, 2010, and relator’s couns el went to respondent’s home and
advised him that relator would seek a default judgment if respondent did not cooperate. Because respondent did not file an answer or otherwise appear in the action, relator filed a motion for defau lt judgment pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). In support of that motion, rela tor submitted the affidavit of its counsel and two of the three clients affected by respondent’s conduct, sworn copies of relator’s correspondence, and the tran script of an attempted deposition.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 {¶ 4} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Disciplin e granted relator’s motion, making findings of fact
and misconduct and reco mmending that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The board a dopted the master commissioner’s report in its entirety. We adopt these findings of fact and misconduc t and indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio.
Misconduct

Count One {¶ 5} In January 2004, a man retained re spondent to represent him in a personal-injury action. After four years, respondent settled the client’s case for $236,000, from which he deducted hi s one-third fee, paid the client’s subrogated medical expenses, and retained $15,000 to cover any lien that Medicare might have on the settlement proceed s. Respondent has not provi ded the client with an accounting or returned the remaining $15,000 and has not responded to the
client’s efforts to reach him by letter or telephone. {¶ 6} Relator sent respondent a letter of inquiry regarding the client’s grievance on August 6, 2008, and followed up with letters in September and October, but respondent did not respond. In response to relator’s November 2008 mailing of a notice of deposition and request for production of documents, respondent sent a three-page letter addr essing some aspects of the client’s grievance. The day before the schedul ed deposition, respondent called and agreed to provide documentation rela ting to the client’s case. Consequently, relator canceled the deposition. However, res pondent never provided the requested
documents and failed to atte nd a second scheduled deposition. {¶ 7} The board found, and we agree, th at respondent’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4 (requiring a lawyer to re asonably communicate with a client), 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly de liver funds or other property that the client is entitled to receive), 8.1(b) (p rohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failingJanuary Term, 2011

3 to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation), 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s hon esty or trustworthiness), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).
Count Two {¶ 8} In the spring of 2007, a second client retained respondent to represent him for injuries he had received in an automobile accident. Despite the client’s repeated attempts to contact re spondent, he has not heard from respondent since early 2008. In July 2009, a claims ad juster for the tortfeasor’s insurance company informed the client that res pondent had settled his claim for $4,000 in May 2008, but that the settlement check ha d never been cashed and an executed release had never been returned. The client eventually settled his claim with the tortfeasor’s insurance company wit hout the assistance of legal counsel. {¶ 9} Respondent has not responded to relator’s letters of inquiry regarding this matter, has failed to a ppear for a properly noticed deposition, and has not responded to relator’s re quest for production of documents. {¶ 10} The board found that respondent’s conduct with respect to this
count 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 client), 1.4, 1.15(d), and 8.4(h), as well as 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to coopera te with a disciplinary investigation).
Count Three {¶ 11} On April 2, 2009, relator sent a lette r to respondent at the address on file with the Office of Attorney Registration seeking his response to a grievance filed by a third client. That letter was returned by the postal service marked “Troxell law office box closed[,] unable to forward[,] return to sender.”
When relator had not received a res ponse by April 30, 2009, it sent a secondS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 demand for a response via certified mail. That letter was returned marked, “Return to sender[,] unclaimed[,] unabl e to forward.” On May 21, 2009, relator sent a notice of deposition and request fo r production of documents regarding this grievance and the grievances discussed in counts one and two above, by certified mail to respondent’s home and business a ddresses. Respondent signed for the
letter sent to his business a ddress, but the envelope se nt to his home address was returned unclaimed. Respondent did not appear for the deposition. {¶ 12} Unable to obtain an affidavit from the third grievant, relator moved to dismiss the alleged violations re lated to the underlying grievance. Notwithstanding the grievant’s decision to withdraw her grievance, the board found that respondent had ignored relator’s request for information and did not file an answer regarding the allegations in the complaint. Therefore, it found by clear and convincing evidence that res pondent had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct.
Sanction {¶ 13} In recommending that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, the master commissioner and board considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board
of Commissioners on Grievances and Di scipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). See Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli , 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. {¶ 14} They found, as aggravating factors, that respondent had acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in multiple offenses, faile d to cooperate in the disciplinary process, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, caused harm to vulne rable clients, and failed to make restitution. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i). The only mitigating factorJanuary Term, 2011

5 they found was that respondent has no pr ior disciplinary record. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). {¶ 15} Respondent has failed to provide an accounting or deliver funds in
which a client has an inte rest, has failed to provide competent representation, has failed to act with reasonable diligence, and has failed to respond to three separate disciplinary investigations. By engaging in this conduct, he has violated his duties to his clients, the pub lic, and the legal profession. {¶ 16} The board concluded that an inde finite suspension is appropriate, applying the rule that “ ‘[a] lawyer’s neglect of legal matters and failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary inves tigation generally warrant an indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio,’ ” Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Kaplan , 124 Ohio St.3d 278, 2010-Ohio-167, 921 N.E.2d 645, ¶ 15, quoting
Akron Bar Assn. v. Goodlet , 115 Ohio St.3d 7, 2007-Ohio-4271, 873 N.E.2d 815, ¶ 20. See also Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson , 113 Ohio St.3d 365, 2007- Ohio-2076, 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 19. Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, we agree that an indefinite license suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case. {¶ 17} Accordingly, Richard Hollingsworth Harold Troxell is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.

__________________ Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, A. Al ysha Clous, Assistant Bar Counsel, Anne Valentine, and Paul Leithart II, for relator.

______________________