[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rutherford, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2680.]

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 . 2018-O HIO -2680
D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . R UTHERFORD . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rutherford, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2680.] Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including neglecting client matters, fa iling to refund unearned legal fees, engaging in dishonest conduct, and faili ng to cooperate in disciplinary investigations—Permanent disbarment. (No. 2017-0010—Submitted January 24, 2018—Decided July 11, 2018.)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Professi onal Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2016-051.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Guy Darius Rutherfor d, whose last known address was in Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0066032, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1996.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Summary of Prior Discipline {¶ 2} We suspended Rutherford in four different matters starting in 1998 and ending in 2009. Rutherford was su spended in 1998 for nonpayment of child support, see In re Rutherford , 81 Ohio St.3d 1254, 691 N.E.2d 1049 (1998), and was reinstated two months later. He was briefly suspended for failing to timely register as an attorney in 2005 and 2007, see In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Rutherford , 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671; In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Rutherford , 116 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2007-Ohio6463, 877 N.E.2d 305. In 2006, we imposed a stayed six-month suspension for Rutherford’s neglect of three clients’ matters, failure to deposit unearned fees into his client trust account, and fa ilure to promptly deliver f unds that his clients were entitled to receive, but we la ter revoked the stay based on his contempt of our prior
order. See Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rutherford , 112 Ohio St.3d 159, 2006-Ohio6526, 858 N.E.2d 417; Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rutherford , 118 Ohio St.3d 1512, 2008-Ohio-3441, 889 N.E.2d 1028. He was reinstated in May 2009. {¶ 3} On March 11, 2016, we suspended Ruth erford’s license on an interim
basis after he failed to answer a Decemb er 11, 2015 disciplinary complaint filed by relator, disciplinary counsel, which alleged that he ha d abandoned multiple clients, failed to refund (or failed to timely refund) their retainer s, failed to cooperate in multiple disciplinary inve stigations, and engaged in additional misconduct. Disciplinary Counsel v. Rutherford , 145 Ohio St.3d 1247, 2016-Ohio-944, 49 N.E.3d 309. On October 31, 2016, we converted that interim suspension into an indefinite suspension pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(14)(E)(1), and that suspension
remains in effect. Disciplinary Counsel v. Rutherford , 147 Ohio St.3d 1245, 2016- Ohio-7532, 65 N.E.3d 764. Pending Disciplinary Complaint {¶ 4} On November 4, 2016, relator filed a new complaint with the Board
of Professional Conduc t alleging that Rutherford had engaged in additionalJanuary Term, 2018

3 misconduct, including the neglect of four separate client ma tters, and had then failed to cooperate in the en suing disciplinary investigation. Based on Rutherford’s failure to file an answer to that complaint, we imposed another interim default suspension on February 1, 2017. Disciplinary Counsel v. Rutherford , 149 Ohio St.3d 1261, 2017-Ohio-365, 75 N.E.3d 1271. {¶ 5} On September 7, 2017, we granted re lator’s motion to remand this proceeding to the board to seek Rutherfo rd’s permanent disbarment. Thereafter,
relator submitted a motion for default disb arment supported by sworn or certified exhibits, including the affidavits of four clients, assistant disciplinary counsel, and relator’s investigator and administrative personnel. See Gov.Bar R. V(14)(F). {¶ 6} The motion for default was referred to a master appointed by the board for disposition pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V( 14)(F)(2)(a). The master recommended that Rutherford be permanently disbarre d based on findings that included that he neglected client matters, faile d to refund unearned retainers, and failed to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation. The board adopted the master’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and agreed that Rutherford should be permanently disbarred. For the reasons that follow, we adopt the board’s report and permanently disbar Rutherford from the practice of law in Ohio.
Misconduct Counts I through III: The Sherrod, Hernandez, and Cedeno Matters {¶ 7} Between October 2013 and Novemb er 2015, Penny Sherrod, Martha Hernandez, and Reinaldo Cedeno separately retained Rutherford to file complaints for divorce. Each of them paid him a re tainer of $600 to $800 for attorney fees and costs. Rutherford did not perform any of the contracted work—although he falsely
advised Sherrod that he ha d filed a complaint for divor ce on her behalf. He also had little or no communication with these clients after collecting their fees. Sherrod, Hernandez, and Cedeno each reques ted a refund of their legal fees, butS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 Rutherford complied only with Cedeno’s request—nearly one year after it was
made. {¶ 8} The board found and we agree that by engaging in the described conduct, Rutherford committed three viol ations each of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligen ce in representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client r easonably informed about the status of a matter), 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee), and 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly refund any unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment) and a single violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4( c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fr aud, deceit, or misrepresentation). Count IV: The Vega Matter {¶ 9} In June 2015, Rinaldo Vega hired Rutherford to represent Vega’s son in pending criminal and immigration matters. Vega had advanced Rutherford $4,500 in attorney fees by October 15, 2015, and Rutherford informed him that he had filed an application to inspect sealed records in the criminal case. After numerous failed attempts to communicate with Rutherford, Vega retained another attorney to represent his son in the immigration case only. Rutherford met with the immigration attorney to discuss the case and promised to forward the files in his possession. Although Rutherford responded to the immigration attorney’s e-mailed inquiry about the status of the files an d did forward some documents, he never provided most of the files. {¶ 10} After Vega’s son was found guilty of several offenses in his criminal case, Rutherford filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal. The court of appeals granted the motion and sent a copy of its order to Rutherford’s address of record, directing him to file a notice of appeal and a completed docketing statement on or before February 16, 2016, but the ma iling was returned by the postal service marked “attempted-not known” and “unable to forward.” Rutherford took noJanuary Term, 2018

5 further action on behalf of Vega’s son, an d the appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Vega filed a grievance w ith relator and requested a refund, but Rutherford has not refunded any portion of Vega’s $4,500 retainer. {¶ 11} The board found that Rutherford’s conduct in Vega’s son’s cases violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4 ) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requ ests for information from the client), 1.16(e), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justi ce). We adopt these findings of fact and
misconduct. Count V: Failure to Cooperate {¶ 12} Beginning in February 2016, relator sent multiple letters of inquiry and a notice of intent to file a complaint to the addresses that Rutherford had registered with the Office of Attorney Services. Many, but not all, of those letters were returned marked “attempted-not known,” “unable to forward,” “addressee unknown,” or “not deliverable as addressed.” Relator also sent those documents to the e-mail address Rutherford had registered with the Office of Attorney Services, and relator received responses from relator’s e-mail server that the deliveries had been completed. But Rutherford failed to contact relator and never provided any written response to relator’s le tters or e-mails. He also failed to provide relator or the Office of Attorney Services with a valid residential or office address. {¶ 13} In March 2016, relator’s investigat or attempted se veral times to personally serve Rutherford at his residentia l and office addresses. The investigator
learned that Rutherford had been evicte d from his residence and that the buildingmanagement company had no forwarding addr ess. He also learned that although
Rutherford had not been seen at his office in months, the building receptionist had continued to place mail in his office. Th e investigator left letters of inquiry regarding the Sherrod and Hernandez ma tters on Rutherford’s desk, which had stacks of unopened mail on it.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 {¶ 14} After attempted service of relator’s complaint on Rutherford failed, that document and subsequent orders of this court were served on the clerk of this court in conformity with Gov.Bar R. V(27)(B). {¶ 15} The board found that Rutherford violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority du ring an investigation) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). Relator’s complaint also charged that Rutherford’s failure to provide his current residential
and office addresses to the Office of Attorney Services violated Gov.Bar R. VI(4)(B) (requiring each attorney admitted to the practice of law in Ohio to provide the Office of Attorney Services with th e attorney’s current residential address, office address, office telephone number, an d office or personal e-mail address), and
the board found that Rutherford failed to comply with those requirements. We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct with respect to this count.
Sanction {¶ 16} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider several relevant factors, including the et hical duties that the lawyer violated, the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. {¶ 17} As aggravating factors, the board found that Rutherford acted with a selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, took advantage of vulnerable clients, and failed to make restitution. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2), (3), (4), (8), and (9). We also note that he has a history of prior discipline, including sanctions for the sa me type of misconduct that we sanction him for today. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1). No mitigating factors are present. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C). {¶ 18} In recommending that we permanently disbar Rutherford, the board cited multiple cases in which we held that the presumptive sanction for attorneysJanuary Term, 2018

7 who accept retainers and fail to carry out contracts of employment is disbarment
because the conduct is “ ‘tantamount to theft of the fee from the client.’ ” E.g. , Disciplinary Counsel v. Henry , 127 Ohio St.3d 398, 2010-Ohio-6206, 939 N.E.2d 1255, ¶ 33, quoting Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver , 102 Ohio St.3d 264, 2004- Ohio-2683, 809 N.E.2d 1113, ¶ 16. {¶ 19} Having independently reviewed the record, we agree that relator has submitted clear and convincing evidence that Rutherford collected retainers from several clients, fa iled to perform the contracted lega l services for those clients, and, in most cases, failed to return any portion of their retainers. Furthermore, relator
has established that Rutherfo rd lied about the status of a client’s case, prejudiced the administration of justice when another client’s delayed criminal appeal was dismissed as a result of his inaction, and fa iled to cooperate in multiple disciplinary investigations. Given the nature of Rutherford’s misconduct, the extensive aggravating factors present (including his prior discipline for similar acts), the complete absence of mitigating factors, and the sanctions we have imposed for comparable misconduct, we agree that permanent disbarment is warranted. {¶ 20} Accordingly, Guy Darius Rutherford is permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to Rutherford. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and O’D ONNELL , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , and
D E W INE , JJ., concur.
D E G ENARO , J., not participating.

_________________ Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Couns el, and Stacy Solochek Beckman and Michelle R. Bowman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

_________________