[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Peters, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-5219.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 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
. 2019-O HIO -5219
D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . P ETERS
. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Peters, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-5219.] Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct— Conditionally stayed one-year suspension. (No. 2019-1074—Submitted September 11, 2019—Decided December 19 , 2019.)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Professiona l Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2018-042.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, John Ivor Peters, of Pataskala, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0033246, was admitte d to the practice of law i n Ohio in 1975. We suspended him from the practice of law for 12 days in November 2017 based on his failure to register as an attorney for the 2017/2019 bienni um. See In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Peters , 151 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2017-Ohio-8409, 85 N.E.3d 754. Peters served a second attorney-registration suspe nsion fromS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 November 1 until December 2, 2019, due to his failure to regist er for the 2019/2021
biennium. See In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Peters , 157 Ohio St.3d 1472, 2019-Ohio-4529, 134 N.E.3d 183. {¶ 2} In a formal complaint filed with the Board of Professional Cond uct on August 28, 2018, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Pete rs with multiple
violations of the Rules of Pro fessional Conduct arising from hi s alleged failure to competently represent two clients, neglect of their legal matte rs, and mishandling
of one client’s se ttlement proceeds. {¶ 3} The parties entered into stipul ations of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors and jointly recommended that Peters be suspended from the practice of law for one year, fully stayed o n conditions. {¶ 4} After a hearing before a panel of the board, the board issued a report finding that Peters committed the stipulated violations and rec ommending that we adopt the parties’ p roposed sanction. No obj ections have been filed. {¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and agree that a conditionally stayed one-year sus pension is the appropriate san ction in this case.
Misconduct
The O’Connor Matter {¶ 6} On August 4, 2015, Mary O’Connor retained Peters to pursue clai ms arising from an automobile accident in which another driver str uck O’Connor’s vehicle from behind, causing O’Connor to suffer personal injuri es and destroying her hearing aids. After executing a written contingent-fee con tract, Peters spoke with a representative of the other driver’s insurance company a bout O’Connor’s claims. Although he informed the insurance company that O’Conn or’s hearing aids had been destroyed and that their replacement cost was approxim ately $7,000, he
made no settlement de mand and received no settlement offer. {¶ 7} On March 12, 2016, more than seven months after retaining Peter s, O’Connor received a letter from the insurance company informing her that althoughJanuary Term, 2019

3 her medical insurer had made a s ubrogation demand in excess of $5,600, her claim remained unresolved because the company had not received any me dical bills or records to support her injury c laim. O’Connor provided Peters with a copy of the letter, but he waited until Oct ober 19, 2016, to file a complai nt on her behalf. He also failed to respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, wh ich the trial court ultimately granted on the ground th at Peters had filed the comp laint one day after the applicable statute of limitations had expired. {¶ 8} Peters told O’Connor that the cour t had dismissed her complaint and that he would submit a claim to his professional-liability insu rance carrier on her behalf. Although he called his insurance carrier and spoke wit h a claims adjuster, he never took any further action on O’Connor’s behalf to facili tate her recovery on a malpractice claim. {¶ 9} The parties’ stipulated and the board found that Peters violate d Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent repre sentation to a client) and 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable dili gence in representing a client). We adopt these findings of misconduct. The Raynard Matter {¶ 10} Peters probated the wills of Lawrence E. Raynard and his wife, Joanne Raynard, following their respective deaths in 2007 and 2 009. In August 2014, the Raynards’ son, David L. Raynard, retained Peters to c ollect and distribute funds that he expected to receive on behalf of Lawrence’s estat e from the settlement of certain products- liability litigation. In his fee agreement , Peters acknowledged
that distribution of the settle ment proceeds might require the reopening of
Lawrence’s and Joanne’s estates. {¶ 11} On May 21, 2016, Peters received a $2,484.61 check payable to Lawrence’s estate, but he did not deposit the check into his cl ient trust account or
the estate account—nor did he inform David that he had received it. More than a year later, David contacted t he opposing counsel in the product s-liability litigationS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 and learned that the case had settled. In a June 28, 2017 lett er, Peters promised to promptly negotiate the settlement check and forward David’s sha re of the settlement proceeds once David signed an authorization form. A lthough David promptly signed and returned the form, Peters never negotiated the settlement check, reopened Lawrence’s or Joa nne’s estate, or forwarded any settlement funds to David. He also failed to respond to David’s multiple inquir ies about the status of the case. At Peters’s May 9, 2019 disciplinary hearing, he testified that the settlement check remained in his possession and admitted that h e had not contacted David to discuss the case or petitioned the probate court for a uthority to distribute the settlement proceeds. {¶ 12} The parties stipulated and the board found that Peters violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably
informed about the status of a m atter), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with reasonabl e requests for information fr om a client), 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold the pr operty of clients in an inter est-bearing client trust account, separate from the lawye r’s own property), and 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly notify a client or third person that the lawyer has received funds in which the client or third person has a lawful interest). We ad opt these findings of
misconduct.
Sanction {¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for atto rney misconduct, we consider al l relevant factors, including the e thical duties that the lawyer violated, the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. {¶ 14} The parties stipulated and the board found that four aggravatin g factors are present: Peters had a brief attorney-registration s uspension, had committed multiple offenses, had caused harm to vulnerable clie nts, had failed to make restitution to O’Connor, and, in the Raynard matter, had f ailed to seek theJanuary Term, 2019

5 probate court’s authorization to distribute the settlement fund s or to otherwise rectify the consequen ces of his misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1), (4), (8), and (9). We additionally note that during the pendency of this case, Peters served a second suspension for failing to register as an attorney. {¶ 15} As for mitigating factors, the board adopted the parties’ stipu lations
that Peters had not acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, h ad made full and free
disclosure to the board and exhi bited a cooperative attitude to ward these proceedings, and had acknowledged the wrongful nature of his mi sconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(2) and (4). Peters agreed that he would ma ke restitution of $7,000 to O’Connor and obtain the probate court’s approval to d istribute the settlement proceeds in the Raynard matter—though at the time of his disciplinary hearing, he did not have the money and had taken no action in t he probate proceedings in the Raynard matter. He also testified that he w as in the process of winding up his practice and hoped to resolve 10 to 20 open case s so that he could retire without transferring any cases to another attorney. {¶ 16} The parties stipulated that Peters suffered a series of health problems that left him hospitalized or in a rehabilitation facility from December 2014 until June 2015, more than one month be fore O’Connor retained him and well before he received the settlement check in the Raynard matter. The parti es further stipulated
that Peters has had several brie f hospitalizations for other ph ysical conditions since July 2015 and that he had not informed O’Connor or David Raynar d of his health problems, because he did not be lieve that they would adversely affect his ability to promptly and diligently handle their legal matters. He denied that his medical conditions had contributed to cause his misconduct, and an asse ssment conducted by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) did not find an y evidence of a
substance-use or mental-health disorder, though the assessment report noted the presence of “some short-term mem ory issues which would be appro priate due toS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 his age.” Therefore, the board declined to attribute any mitigating effect to Peters’s
medical conditions. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7). {¶ 17} The board recommends that we suspe nd Peters for one year but st ay the entire suspension on the conditions that he commit no furth er misconduct, make restitution to O’Connor and Raynard, comply with OLAP’s recomme ndation that he be evaluated by his primary-care physician (and any other pr ofessionals his physician deems necessary) to determine the cause of his short- term memory issues and their effect on his physical ability and mental competence to engage in the active practice of law, and submit proof of his compliance to r elator within 90 days
of our order. {¶ 18} The board noted that we have imposed one-year suspensions, full y stayed on conditions, on other attorneys who neglected one to f our client matters, failed to reasonably communicate with the affected clients, and in some instances failed to take reasonably practicable steps to protect a client ’s interests on the termination of the represe ntation—or similar misconduct. See, e.g. , Cleveland
Metro. Bar Assn. v. Fonda , 138 Ohio St.3d 399, 2014-Ohio-850, 7 N.E.3d 1164 (neglect of two client matters , failure to reasonably communica te with those clients, and failure to take steps to pr otect a client’s interests on wi thdrawal from representation); Disciplinary Counsel v. Simmonds , 147 Ohio St.3d 280, 2016- Ohio-5599, 63 N.E.3d 1205 (neglect of two client matters, failu re to comply with reasonable requests for information from clients in three matte rs, and failure to notify a client that she may be entitled to refund of a fee den ominated as “earned upon receipt” if the attorney did not complete the representati on); Trumbull Cty.
Bar Assn. v. Yakubek , 142 Ohio St.3d 455, 2015-Ohio-1570, 32 N.E.3d 440 (neglect of four client matters and failure to reasonably commu nicate with the affected clients). {¶ 19} The board also noted that we have imposed that sanction on attorneys who engaged in conduct similar to Peters’s and who al so had priorJanuary Term, 2019

7 discipline that was more serious than an attorney-registration suspension. See, e.g. , Columbus Bar Assn. v. McNeal , 152 Ohio St.3d 37, 2017-Ohio-8775, 92 N.E.3d 840 (imposing a conditionally stayed one-year suspension on an attorney who neglected a single client matter and failed to reasonably commu nicate with the affected client after serving a one-year suspension for dishone st conduct); Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hanni , 145 Ohio St.3d 492, 2016-Ohio-1174, 50 N.E.3d 542 (imposing a conditionally stayed one-year suspension on an attorney who neglected a single client m atter and failed to reasonably c ommunicate with the affected client after serving a conditionally stayed six-month suspension for neglecting another clie nt matter and making unsubstantiated all egations of ethical misconduct against a county prosecutor). {¶ 20} Here, Peters neglected and provi ded incompetent representation in two separate client matters, failed to notify one of the affect ed clients that he had received funds belonging to the client, failed to deposit those funds into his client trust account, failed to respond to the client’s reasonable req uests for information, and failed to keep the client r easonably informed about the sta tus of his legal matter. Based on that misconduct, the aggravating and mitigating factor s found by the board, and the sanctions we imposed in Fonda , Simmonds , Yakubek , McNeal , and
Hanni , we agree that a one-year suspension, stayed on the conditions recommended by the board, is the appropri ate sanction in this case. {¶ 21} Accordingly, John Ivor Peters is suspended from the practice of law for one year, fully stayed on the conditions that he engage in no further misconduct and within 90 days of this court’s order (1) make restitution o f $7,000 to Mary O’Connor, (2) provide David Raynard with a valid check for his share of the $2,484.61 products-liability settlement, (3) submit to evaluati on(s) conducted by his primary-care physician and an y other professionals his phys ician deems necessary to determine the cause of his short-term memory issue s and their effect on his physical ability and mental competence to engage in the active practice ofS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

8 law, and (4) submit proof of his compliance to relator within 9 0 days of our order in this case. If Peters fails to comply with any condition of the stay, the stay will
be lifted and he will serve the full one-year suspension. Cost s are taxed to Peters. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

_________________ Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. John Ivor Peters, pro se.

_________________