Trumbull County Bar Ass'n v. Large

2012 Ohio 5482, 980 N.E.2d 1021, 134 Ohio St. 3d 172
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 29, 2012
Docket2012-0691
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2012 Ohio 5482 (Trumbull County Bar Ass'n v. Large) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Trumbull County Bar Ass'n v. Large, 2012 Ohio 5482, 980 N.E.2d 1021, 134 Ohio St. 3d 172 (Ohio 2012).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, John Harold Large of Warren, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0068732, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997. On April 11, 2011, relator, Trumbull County Bar Association, filed a four-count complaint against Large for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. Large was previously disciplined in Supreme Court case No. 2009-0041, Disciplinary Counsel v. Large, 122 Ohio St.3d 35, 2009-Ohio-2022, 907 N.E.2d 1162. In the current complaint, the first three counts allege neglect of client matters, the mishandling of client funds, and the failure to give notice of the suspension in case No. 2009-0041. The fourth count alleges misrepresentations of fact in connection with seeking reinstatement after his suspension in case No. 2009-0041.

{¶ 2} A hearing was held before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievance and Discipline on January 25, 2012. At that hearing, relator presented witness testimony and exhibits in support of the charges against Large. The panel’s findings and conclusions, which were adopted by the board, included the following: (1) three violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), (2) misconduct involving the maintenance of client funds in trust accounts in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a), (c), and (d), and (3) with respect to two of the four counts, conduct that violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), (d), and (h) in that the conduct was dishonest, that it was prejudicial to the administration of justice, or that it reflected adversely on respondent’s fitness to practice law. In considering mitigating and aggravating factors, the panel and the board found no mitigating factors and identified seven aggravating factors. The board recommends a two-year suspension with six months stayed. We concur.

*173 Misconduct

1. Background

{¶ 3} While attending the University of Akron School of Law, Large worked in the Summit County Public Defender’s Office during his final year. Thereafter, he worked at a firm called Buckley & George, after which he embarked on a solo practice, which continued up to the time of the hearing. Large characterized his practice as a general practice with about 50 percent domestic and juvenile court cases.

2. Count I: The Ward matter

{¶ 4} Christina Ward first met with Large on October 26, 2007, and on June 19, 2008, she retained him to file a divorce action on her behalf in the Lake County Common Pleas Court. Ward paid Large a $2,000 retainer fee for the purpose of having Large file and prosecute a divorce action, and she testified that she never received a written fee agreement. Large testified that he prepared and signed two alternative agreements, but he could not produce either. Large deposited the retainer not in a trust account but in his business operating account, an act for which Large could offer no explanation.

{¶ 5} Ward wanted to delay the filing of the divorce case until early July 2008, after she had moved out of the family home. Large did finally file the divorce case in September 2008, but only after Ward became dissatisfied after a number of calls to Large’s office, during which she would speak to secretaries but not with Large himself. Large did not return any of those calls. The secretaries sometimes told Ward that the case had already been filed.

{¶ 6} On September 22, 2008, Ward sent a fax in which she fired Large, demanded the return of the retainer, and stated that Large was “no longer authorized to do anything” on her behalf. After that, Large did call Ward, and he asked that she take one more day to reconsider terminating the representation. Ward did so, but she decided she wanted to go through with firing Large and told him so the next day. Ward did not receive anything back from Large until February 2009, however. At that time, her file was forwarded to her new attorney and she received a refund check of $1,007.50.

{¶ 7} On September 23, 2008, Large filed the divorce complaint in spite of the September 22, 2008 fax’s instruction that he was not authorized to act on her behalf. Large claims not to have been aware of the fax until after he filed the complaint. In spite of Ward’s September 2008 decision to terminate Large, he did not file his motion to withdraw as counsel until October 15, 2008, and when he did so, he served the motion on the husband but not on Ward herself. The motion to withdraw premised Large’s withdrawal on Ward’s being injured, but made no mention that Large had been terminated for inactivity. Although Large *174 testified that Ward had indicated that the injury was a reason for the withdrawal, the panel found that the testimony was not credible.

{¶ 8} Between September 2008 and February 2009, when Large finally returned some of the retainer and forwarded the file, Ward called Large ten times to request that the fee and the file be returned, but she never received a return phone call.

{¶ 9} In December 2008, Ward filed a grievance against Large. Large received two letters from relator’s grievance committee, one in December and one in January, but did not act to refund Ward’s money or return the file in her case until late February. Then, on March 26, 2009, Large furnished the bar association grievance counsel some but not all the requested information. The panel found that Large’s testimony in extenuation lacked credibility.

{¶ 10} The board concluded that with respect to the Ward matter, relator had shown by clear and convincing evidence that Large violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (“A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client”), 1.15(d) (“a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive”), 1.15(a) (“A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property,” and such funds are to be kept in a trust account), 1.15(c) (“A lawyer shall deposit into a client trust account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred”), 8.4(c) (a lawyer shall not “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation”), 8.4(d) (prohibiting “conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice”), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting “conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law”). The board also found a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (an attorney shall not neglect or refuse to assist in a grievance investigation). We concur in the board’s findings.

3. Count II: The Natali matter

{¶ 11} On August 14, 2008, Jennifer Natali retained Large to assist her in filing for bankruptcy. Large told Natali that the fee would be $1,300 and that the case would not be filed until the retainer was paid in full. Natali paid one $500 installment at the initial meeting and then paid in full on April 9, 2009. Large claims that there was a fee agreement but could not produce one. He deposited the retainer amounts into his business operating account.

{¶ 12} After paying, Natali heard nothing from Large. Large did not file the bankruptcy.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith (Slip Opinion)
2022 Ohio 840 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2022)
Trumbull County Bar Association v. Large.
2018 Ohio 4074 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2018)
Columbus Bar Association v. Reed
2016 Ohio 834 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2012 Ohio 5482, 980 N.E.2d 1021, 134 Ohio St. 3d 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trumbull-county-bar-assn-v-large-ohio-2012.