[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 Decisions, 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. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-2680

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. RUTHERFORD.

[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, failing to refund unearned legal fees, 

engaging in dishonest conduct, and failing to cooperate in disciplinary 

investigations—Permanent disbarment.

(No. 2017-0010—Submitted January 24, 2018—Decided July 11, 2018.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 

Court, No. 2016-051. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Guy Darius Rutherford, whose last known address was 

in Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0066032, was admitted to the 

practice of law in Ohio in 1996. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Summary of Prior Discipline 

{¶ 2} We suspended Rutherford in four different matters starting in 1998 

and ending in 2009. Rutherford was suspended 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 failure to promptly deliver funds that his clients were 

entitled to receive, but we later 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 Rutherford’s license on an interim 

basis after he failed to answer a December 11, 2015 disciplinary complaint filed by 

relator, disciplinary counsel, which alleged that he had abandoned multiple clients, 

failed to refund (or failed to timely refund) their retainers, failed to cooperate in 

multiple disciplinary investigations, 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 Conduct alleging that Rutherford had engaged in additional 
January Term, 2018 

3

misconduct, including the neglect of four separate client matters, and had then 

failed to cooperate in the ensuing 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 relator’s motion to remand this 

proceeding to the board to seek Rutherford’s permanent disbarment. Thereafter, 

relator submitted a motion for default disbarment 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 disbarred based on findings that included that he 

neglected client matters, failed 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 November 2015, Penny Sherrod, Martha 

Hernandez, and Reinaldo Cedeno separately retained Rutherford to file complaints 

for divorce. Each of them paid him a retainer 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 had filed a complaint for divorce on her behalf. He also 

had little or no communication with these clients after collecting their fees. 

Sherrod, Hernandez, and Cedeno each requested a refund of their legal fees, but 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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 violations each of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring 

a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) 

(requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably 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, fraud, 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 and 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 mailing was returned by the postal service 

marked “attempted-not known” and “unable to forward.” Rutherford took no 
January Term, 2018 

5

further action on behalf of Vega’s son, and the appeal was dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. Vega filed a grievance with 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 requests 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 justice). 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 letters 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 investigator attempted several times to 

personally serve Rutherford at his residential and office addresses. The investigator 

learned that Rutherford had been evicted from his residence and that the buildingmanagement company had no forwarding address. 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. The investigator left letters of inquiry 

regarding the Sherrod and Hernandez matters on Rutherford’s desk, which had 

stacks of unopened mail on it. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

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 during 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 the attorney’s current residential address, 

office address, office telephone number, and 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 ethical 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 same 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 attorneys 
January 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, failed to perform the contracted legal services for those clients, and, 

in most cases, failed to return any portion of their retainers. Furthermore, relator 

has established that Rutherford 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 failed 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’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, and

DEWINE, JJ., concur. 

DEGENARO, J., not participating. 

_________________ 

Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman and 

Michelle R. Bowman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

_________________