[Cite as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Watkins, 94 Ohio St.3d 14, 2001-Ohio-6976.]

STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. WATKINS. 

[Cite as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Watkins (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 14.] 

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Engaging in conduct 

involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Handling a 

legal matter not competent to handle — Handling a legal matter without 

adequate preparation — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Failing 

to seek the lawful objectives of a client — Neglecting or refusing to assist 

or testify in a disciplinary investigation or hearing. 

(No. 01-1206 — Submitted August 28, 2001 — Decided December 19, 2001.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-24. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. From September 1997 through the spring of 1998, 

respondent, Timothy W. Watkins of North Canton, Ohio, Attorney Registration 

No. 0041271, received retainers from clients in six separate matters and failed to 

take action on their behalf. In September 1997, Jacqueline Cassel retained 

respondent to collect back rent from an original lessor and from a sublessor who 

was occupying a residence owned by her. Thereafter, respondent did not reply to 

Cassel’s attempts to contact him and did not return her files. In October 1997, 

Jennifer R. Greene retained respondent for representation in a medical 

malpractice action. Afterwards, Greene could not contact respondent. 

 Also in 1997, after respondent attended a hearing in a divorce action on 

behalf of Teresa A. Day, in which she was awarded one-half of her ex-husband’s 

stock option plan, he failed to prepare a follow-up Qualified Domestic Relations 

Order or return Day’s phone calls. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

 Dena Metz paid respondent a $500 retainer in September 1997 to 

represent her in a divorce case. Although he appeared at the initial hearing, 

respondent failed to keep in contact with Metz, did not appear at a scheduled 

hearing, and did not acknowledge Metz’s termination letter to him. He also failed 

to advise Metz of a show cause hearing for her failure to cooperate with discovery 

requests, which respondent had not forwarded to her. As a result of her failure to 

appear, the court issued a warrant for Metz’s arrest. Ultimately, Metz retained 

another attorney to complete her divorce proceeding, and respondent never 

refunded the retainer that she had paid to him. 

 In the spring of 1998, William Welker retained respondent to represent 

him in a breach of contract action. On April 30, 1998, respondent dismissed the 

case without prejudice. Throughout the remainder of 1998 and the first part of 

1999, Welker could not contact respondent. 

 After Jennifer R. Greene complained to the Stark County Bar Association, 

relator herein, that respondent had in January 1998 voluntarily dismissed without 

prejudice a malpractice action that he had filed for Greene and had refused to 

contact her, respondent refiled the action against the three defendants. However, 

the court issued summary judgment in favor of two defendants when respondent 

failed to respond to those defendants’ motion. Respondent dismissed the action 

against the other defendant without prejudice. He did not advise Greene of either 

the granting of the summary judgment or the dismissal. 

 Based on grievances filed by these clients, relator filed a complaint 

charging respondent with violating numerous provisions of the Code of 

Professional Responsibility. Respondent answered, and the matter was heard by a 

panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”). 

After a hearing during which the panel accepted stipulations and exhibits, the 

panel found the facts as set forth above. Respondent submitted no evidence of 

mitigation. Based on these facts, the panel concluded that respondent’s conduct 
January Term, 2001 

3

violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving 

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 6-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not 

handle a legal matter which he is not competent to handle), 6-101(A)(2) (a lawyer 

shall not attempt to handle a legal matter without preparation adequate in the 

circumstances), 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter), 

and 7-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not intentionally fail to seek the lawful objectives 

of a client). The panel also concluded that in not responding fully and promptly 

to relator’s inquiries regarding these matters, respondent violated Gov.Bar R. 

V(4)(G) (no attorney shall neglect or refuse to assist or testify in a disciplinary 

investigation or hearing). 

 The panel recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from 

the practice of law. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation of the panel. 

 Upon review, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 

the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law 

in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 

LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Timothy B. Saylor, Richard S. Milligan and John R. Giua, for relator. 

Timothy W. Watkins, pro se. 

__________________