a-~-. o - ohiosc.ohio.gov/boards/boc/certifiedcases/2017/decjan/2016-071.pdf · arturo melean is or...

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RECEIVED OF

THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO NOV 2 8

In re: Complaint Against BRADLEY D. KEATING Attorney Registration No. 0076341 The Keating Firm, Ltd. 161 Mill Street Gahanna, Ohio 43230

RESPONDENT,

by

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION 175 South Third Street, Suite! 100 Columbus, Ohio 43215

RELATOR

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Case No. --,~a-~-. o 1 ~

COMPLAINT AND

CERTIFICATE .... 1 Ii

r"J

Now comes relator and alleges that Bradley Dennis Keating (Attorney Reg. No.

0076341), was admitted to practice law in Ohio in 2003 and that he is guilty of the following

misconduct:

BACKGROUND

I. Respondent, Bradley Dennis Keating, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio on

November 10, 2003.

2. Respondent has not been previously disciplined by the Supreme Court of Ohio.

3. Respondent is currently the owner and managing member of The Keating Firm, Ltd.,

an Ohio limited liability company.

4. Prior to January I, 2012, respondent was a partner at Magelaner, Keating and

Associates, Ltd., ("the firm") which he co-owned with attorney Thomas L.

Magelaner.

5. In 2011, the firm maintained two Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts (IOLTA) at

Fifth Third Bank.

6. In and about 2011, the account numbers for the firm's IOLTAs ended in **2119 and

**2500.

7. Effective December 31, 2011, Magelaner sold his interest in the firm to respondent,

and the name of the firm was changed to The Keating Finn, Ltd.

8. Beginning in January 2012, The Keating Finn Ltd. became the account holder for the

IOLTAs ending in **2119 and **2500.

9. IOLTAs at Fifth Third Bank ending in **2119 and **2500 remain open as of the

filing of this complaint.

10. At all times relevant to the allegations of misconduct in this formal complaint, the

firm has also utilized business checking accounts held by Fifth Third Bank and

ending in account numbers **2518 and **7925.

11. Respondent is the sole member of the firm with signatory authority on the

aforementioned firm accounts.

12. At all times relevant to the misconduct alleged in Counts One, Two, and Three of this

complaint, Rebecca Gee Meyer, was an associate attorney employed by the firm.

13. At the time that Meyer worked for the firm, respondent worked at the firm's

Columbus office and Meyer worked in the Cincinnati office.

14. Meyer's license to practice law in Ohio was suspended from December 17, 2010

through June 14, 2011 based upon her failure to complete the required number of

Continuing Legal Education courses.

[2]

15. Meyer has also been the subject of two separate disciplinary cases and is currently

indefinitely suspended from the practice oflaw in Ohio. See, Disciplinary Counsel v.

Meyer, 134 Ohio St.3d 180, 2012-0hio-5487 and Disciplinary Counsel v. Meyer, 142

Ohio St.3d 448, 2015-0hio-493.

16. At the present time, the firm employs three attorneys, respondent and Joel A.

Gonzalez work in the Columbus office; Sarah A. Kuntz works in the Cincinnati

office.

17. Respondent is currently the managing attorney at the firm and supervises the work of

Gonzalez and Kuntz.

18. As the firm's owner, respondent is responsible for establishing internal policies and

procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance that the conduct of the firm's

employees conforms to the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.

COUNT ONE Lauren Mack

19. On June 10, 2011, Lauren Mack was injured in a motor vehicle accident in which the

other driver received a traffic citation.

20. On or about June 22, 2011, Mack retained the firm "to assert a claim for personal

injury damages relating to and/or arising out of' the June 10, 2011 accident.

21. Mack's contingent fee agreement is sjgned by Mack but is not signed by respondent

or any other representative of the firm.

22. Mack began treating with a chiropractor at Southside Therapy Group LLC, dba

Chiropractic Therapy South, 47 East Hollister Street, Cincinnati, OH 45219, on June

23, 2011, and continued treatment at Southside until August 19, 2011.

[3]

23. In a signed writing dated June 22, 2011, the film issued a letter of protection agreeing

to pay the fees incurred by Southside Therapy for Mack's treatment out of any

settlement or judgment proceeds.

24. Beginning in late August 2011, the firm exchanged settlement offers and

counteroffers on behalf of Mack.

25. Mack accepted a settlement offer of$5,500 from Farmers Insurance on or about

November 28, 2011.

26. According to respondent, sometime prior to November 29, 2011, Southside Therapy

agreed to reduce its fees for Mack's treatment from $3,733 to $2,425.

27. According to the settlement statement signed by Mack on November 30, 2011,

Mack's net settlement amount was $1,009.25.

28. Mack's closing statement is signed by Mack but not signed by a member of the firm.

29. According to one of respondent's multiple different accounting records, on November

29, 2011, and well before the settlement check was received by the firm, the firm

purportedly issued four checks from IOLTA **2119 to and on behalf of Lauren

Mack, to wit:

11/29/2011 Check 1830

11/29/2011 Check 1831

11/29/2011 Check ll279

11/29/20 ll Check 1833

$ 742.00

387.00

2,425.00

1,009.25

30. Respondent's accounting records do not readily indicate to whom check numbers

1830, 1831, 1833, or 11279 were payable.

[4]

31. If check numbers 1830, 1831, and 11279 were ever actually issued from IOLTA

**2119, those checks were never negotiated.

32. According to bank records maintained by Fifth Third Bank, and notwithstanding

respondent's records regarding Lauren Mack's settlement, check number 11279 was

not drawn on IOLTA **2119, but instead was issued by the firm months before, i.e.,

on August 31, 2011, in the amount of$200, and was drawn the firm's business

account ending in **2518.

33. Fifth Third Bank records indicates that check number 11279 from business account

**2518 was actually payable to "Dr. A. Melean."

34. Arturo Melean is or was a chiropractor based in Columbus, Ohio with an office

across the street from respondent's Columbus office location.

35. The check payable to Dr. Melean was not related to Mack's claim.

36. Check 11279 from business account **2518 was negotiated on September I, 2011,

well before Mack's settlement was deposited into IOLTA **2119 in December 2011.

3 7. Of the checks purportedly issued from the Mack settlement funds deposited into

IOLTA **2119, the only check ever negotiated was check number 1833 payable to

Lauren Mack.

38. Upon information and belief, check 1830 from IOLTA **2119 has never been

negotiated.

39. Upon information and belief, check 1831 from IOLTA **2119 has never been

negotiated.

40. According to a different accounting of Mack's funds maintained by respondent, check

number 1832 (a check in the aforementioned sequence but not appearing on the

[5]

accounting referenced above) was issued from IOLTA **2119 on November 29,

2011 in the amount of$2,425. The accounting indicates that the "memo" portion of

check number 1832 was "Lauren Mack."

41. Respondent's records do not precisely indicate to whom check number 1832 was

payable although another record of Mack's funds maintained by the firm appears to

show that Check 1832 may have been payable to Southside Therapy Group.

42. If check number 1832 was actually issued from IOL TA **2119, it has never been

negotiated.

43. Despite relator's repeated requests, respondent has not produced a copy of the

canceled or negotiated check number 1832.

44. On December 12, 2011, Farmers Insurance issued a check payable to Mack and the

firm in the amount of $5,500 ("the Mack check").

45. On December 19, 2011, the Mack check was deposited into IOLTA ending in

**2119.

46. Mack negotiated check number 1833 on or about December 22, 2011, in the amount

of$1,009.25 from IOLTA **2119.

47. One ofrespondent's accounting records for Lauren Mack indicates that the firm

received insurance payments for Mack's $387 and $742 medical bills on December

31, 2011; however, the firm did not deposit those payments into IOLTA **2119, and

it is unknown if or where those funds were ever deposited.

48. On January 5, 2012, the firm issued check number 2059 to Mack from IOLTA

**2119 in the amount of$1,129 (the sum of$387 and $742), even though those funds

were never deposited into IOLTA **2119.

[6]

49. To date, and despite respondent's claims to the contrary, Southside Therapy has never

been paid for treatment rendered to Mack following the June 10, 2011 accident.

50. In 2015, Attorney John Lowry repeatedly contacted respondent on behalf of

Southside Therapy regarding the unpaid bill for Lauren Mack.

51. When respondent finally responded to Lawry's inquiries, he provided incomplete,

misleading, and clearly erroneous information. Respondent stated only, "I had to

locate these files, as there (sic) were closed. Your client was paid on Keyanna Allen

with Check #5237, for Candice Smith, he was paid on 2-24-12, check #5325, and for

Lauren Mack, he was paid on 11-29-11, check #119."

52. As set forth in Count One herein, respondent's conduct violates the Ohio Rules of

Professional Conduct:

a. By failing to have Mack's contingent fee agreement signed by a member of the

firm, respondent violated Rule 1.5( c )(1) (Each contingent fee agreement shall be

in a writing signed by the client and the lawyer);

b. By failing to have Mack's closing statement signed by a member of the firm,

respondent violated Rule l.5(c)(2) (If the lawyer becomes entitled to

compensation under the contingent fee agreement, the closing statement shall be

signed by the client and the lawyer);

c. By failing to create and maintain accurate records of the funds held in IOLT A

**2119 and by failing to reconcile and properly account on a monthly basis,

respondent violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional

Conduct: Rule 1.15(a)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain for seven years a record for

each bank account that sets forth all of the following: (ii) the date, amount, and

[7]

client affected by each credit and debit); and, Rule 1.15(a)(5) (perform and retain

a monthly reconciliation of the items contained in divisions (a)(2), (3), and (4) of

this rule);

d. By failing to properly identify and distribute funds to a third party with an interest

in those funds, respondent violated the following Rule of Professional Conduct:

Rule 1.15( d) (Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third

person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. *

* * Except. .. a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any

funds or other property that the client is entitled to receive);

e. By failing to properly respond to a third party's request for information regarding

the funds due pursuant to the letter of protection, respondent violated the

following Rule of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.15( d) (Upon request by the

client or third person, the lawyer shall promptly render a full accounting regarding

such funds);

f. By failing to properly identify and distribute funds to a third party with an interest


Rule 1.15(e) (When, in the course of representation, a lawyer is in possession of

funds in which two or more persons, one of whom may be the lawyer, claim

interests, the lawyer shall hold the funds or other property pursuant to division (a)

of this rule until the dispute is resolved. The lawyer shall promptly distribute all

portions of the funds or other property as to which the interests are not in dispute);

g. By providing misleading information to Attorney Lowry in response to Lowry's

request for information regarding payments made to Southside Therapy,

[8]

respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) (A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and,

COUNT TWO Candice Smith

53. Relator hereby incorporates the allegations of misconduct set forth in Connt One of

this complaint.

54. On August 6, 2011, Candice Smith was injured in a motor vehicle accident in which

another driver received a traffic citation.

55. Smith began treating with a chiropractor at Southside Therapy Group LLC on August

15, 2011, and continued treatment at Southside until August 26, 2011.

56. On or about August 16, 2011, Smith retained the firm "to assert a claim for personal

injury damages relating to and/or arising out of," the August 6, 2011 accident.

57. Smith's contingent fee agreement is signed by Smith but is not signed by respondent

· or a representative of the firm.

5 8. In a signed writing dated August 17, 2011, the firm provided a letter of protection

agreeing to pay Southside Therapy for Smith's treatment out of any settlement or

judgment proceeds.

59. Southside Therapy was the only chiropractic clinic to treat Smith after the August 6,

2011 accident.

60. Beginning in August 2011, the firm made several efforts to obtain a settlement on

behalf of Smith.

61. The only "medical special" incurred by Smith was for services from Chiropractic

Therapy South in the amount of $1,416.

[9]

62. According to respondent, Chiropractic Therapy South reduced its fees for Smith's

treatment from $1,416 to $1,325.

63. Smith accepted a settlement offer of $3,000 from Nationwide Insurance on or about

February 10, 2012.

64. The letter sent by the firm to Nationwide Insurance accepting the offer, states, in part,

"[w]e will satisfy any liens of which we are on notice out of the proceeds of the

settlement including the lien from Chiropractic Therapy South."

65. According to the undated settlement statement signed by Smith, her net settlement

amount was $925.

66. Smith's settlement statement is signed by Smith but is not signed by a member of the

firm.

67. On February 14, 2012, the firm issued check number 5326 from IOLTA **2119 in

the amount of $925, payable to Candance (sic) Smith.

68. On February 14, 2012, the firm issued check number 5325 from IOLTA **2119 in

the amount of $1,325, and payable to the wrong payee, i.e. "Chiropractic Care

Centers."

69. The firm mailed check number 5325, payable to Chiropractic Care Centers, to 330

Straight Street, Suite 401, Cincinnati, OH.

70. Check number 5325 was negotiated by Chiropractic Care Center of Clifton LLC on

or about February 23, 2012.

71. Chiropractic Care Centers and Chiropractic Therapy South are separate and unrelated

business entities.

[10]

72. Smith did not receive care or therapy from Chiropractic Care Centers following the

August 6, 2011 accident and no money was owed to Chiropractic Care Centers as a

result of Smith's accident.

73. To date, and despite respondent's claims to the contrary, Southside Therapy was not

and has not been paid for treatment rendered to Candice Smith following the August

· 6, 2011 accident.


Southside Therapy regarding the unpaid bill for Candice Smith.

75. When respondent finally responded to Lawry's inquiries, he provided incomplete,

clearly erroneous, and misleading information. Respondent stated only, "I had to




76. As set forth in Count Two herein, respondent's conduct violates the Ohio Rules of


a. By failing to have Smith's contingent fee agreement signed by a member of the

firm, respondent violated Rule 1.S(c)(l) (Each contingent fee agreement shall be


b. By failing to have Smith's closing statement signed by a member of the firm,

respondent violated Rule 1.5( c)(2) (If the lawyer becomes entitled to



(11]

c. By failing to create and maintain accurate records of the funds held in IOL TA



Conduct: Rule 1.15(a){3) (a lawyer shall maintain for seven years a record for


client affected by each credit and debit); and, Rule 1.15(a)(5) (perform and retain


this rule);



Rule 1.15( d) (Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third






following Rule of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.IS(d) (Upon request by the


such funds);



Rule 1.15(e) (When, in the course ofrepresentation, a lawyer is in possession of


[12]



portions of the funds or other property as to which the interests are not in

dispute.); and,



' respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) (A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).

COUNT THREE Keyanna Winbush Allen

77. Relator hereby incorporates the allegations of misconduct set forth in Counts One and

Two of this complaint.

78. On May 15, 2011, then-nine-year old Keyanna Winbush Allen ("Keyanna") was a

passenger in a motor vehicle driven by her aunt, Kianna Winbush.

79. Keyanna was injured in a motor vehicle accident in which the other driver was cited

for a traffic violation.

80. On or about May 25, 2011, Keyanna's mother, Keyona Winbush, retained the firm to

pursue a claim for Keyanna's personal injuries.

81. The contingent fee agreement signed by Keyona Winbush is not signed by respondent

or a member of the firm.

82. Keyanna began treating with a chiropractor at Southside Therapy Group LLC on May

25, 2011, and continued treatment at Southside until June 7, 2011.

[13]

83. In a signed writing dated May 25, 2011, respondent agreed to pay Southside Therapy

for Keyanna's treatment out of any settlement or judgment proceeds.

84. Beginning in May 2011, the firm made several efforts to obtain a settlement on behalf

ofKeyanna.

85. From September through November 2011, the firm continued to gather records and

pursue a settlement from USAA.

86. In January 2012, Keyona accepted an offer from USAA to resolve Keyanna's claim

for a payment of $1,500 in general damages, payment of chiropractic bills in the

amount of $425, and payment of a lien from the Ohio Department of Job and Family

Services in the amount of $147.88 for a total payment amount of $2,072.88.

87. On February 16, 2012, USAA issued a check payable to the firm and "Kianna

Winbush" (sic) in the amount of $2,073.

88. The settlement statement for Keyanna's claim was signed by Keyona Winbush on

February 10, 2012, but it is not signed by a member of the firm.

89. According to an accounting maintained by respondent, the following checks were

issued from IOLTA **2119 to satisfy claims against Keyanna's settlement:

02/21/2012 Check 5372

02/21/2012 Check 5370

02/21/2012 Check 5371

$ 425.00

147.88

910.13

90. For reasons that are unknown to respondent, Check 5372, payable to Southside

Therapy, was "voided" by the firm in or about July 2012.

91. Check 5372 from IOLTA **2119 was never negotiated.

[14]

92. According to records provided to relator by respondent, the firm issued a second

check, Check 6423, in August 2012, from IOLTA **2119 in the amount of$425.

93. Respondent's records further state that the "memo" for the check was "Kianna

Winbush Allen" (sic).

94. The records produced by respondent do not indicate to whom Check 6423 was

payable.

95. Respondent is unable to produce a copy of canceled or negotiated check number

6423.

96. Upon information and belief, check number 6423 has never been negotiated.

97. To date, and despite respondent's claims to the contrary, Southside Therapy has not

been paid for treatment rendered to Keyanna following the May 15, 2011 accident.


Southside Therapy regarding the unpaid bill for Keyanna Allen.

99. When respondent finally responded to Lowry's inquiries, he provided incomplete,

clearly erroneous, and misleading information. Respondent stated only, "I had to




100. As set forth in Count Three herein, respondent's conduct violates the Ohio Rules of


a. By failing to have Keyanna' s contingent fee agreement signed by a member of the

firm, respondent violated Rule l.5(c)(l) (Each contingent fee agreement shall be


[ 15]

b. By failing to have Keyanna's closing statement signed by a member of the firm,

respondent violated Rule 1.5( c)(2) (If the lawyer becomes entitled to



c. By failing to create and maintain accurate records of the funds held in IOLTA



Conduct: Rule 1.IS(a)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain for seven years a record for


client affected by each credit and debit); and, Rule 1.1S(a)(S) (perform and retain


this rule);



Rule I.IS( d) (Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third






following Rule of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.IS(d) (Upon request by the


such funds);

(16]



Rule 1.15(e) (When, in the course of representation, a lawyer is in possession of




portions of the funds or other property as to which the interests are not in dispute);

and,



respondent violated Rule 8.4(c) (A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).

COUNT FOUR Fifth Third IOLTA # **2500

IO I. Relator hereby incorporates the allegations of misconduct set forth in Counts One

through Three of this complaint.

102. During relator's investigation of the grievance filed by Gordon J. Spurling, D.C., sole

owner of Southside Therapy Group, LLC, respondent told relator that Fifth Third

IOLTA account **2119 was opened in July 2011 after a former client forged checks

on Fifth Third IOLTA account **2500.

103. According to bank records obtained by relator, IOLTA **2119 was opened on July 27,

2011 and was initially funded with an intra-bank transfer from IOLTA **2500 in the

amount of$307,368.89.

[17)

I 04. As of December 31, 2011, the balance in IOLTA **2500 was $85,214.89.

105. When Magelaner sold his interest in the firm to respondent on December 31, 2011,

record-keeping and accounting for IOLTA **2500 became respondent's sole

responsibility.

106. Other than interest, which was promptly withdrawn, no deposits were made into

IOLTA **2500 between December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2012.

107. Check number 16206 payable to Latrenda Lee was written from IOLTA **2500 on or

about June 7, 2012 in the amount of$9,697.68.

108. Check number 16206 was negotiated by Latrenda Lee.

109. As of December 31, 2012, the balance in IOLTA **2500 was $75,517.21.

110. On two dates, December 16 and December 18, 2013, checks in an amount totaling

$125,438.20 were deposited into IOLTA **2500.

111. On December 19, 2013, $125,438.27 was transferred from IOLTA **2500 to IOLTA

**2119 via intra-bank transfer.


113. On May 20, 2014, $1,000 was transferred from IOLTA **2500 to a savings account

at Fifth Third Bank, Account Number ending in **5989.

I 14. As of May 3 I, 2014, the balance in IOLTA **2500 was $74,517.14.


116. As of December 31, 2015, the balance in IOLTA **2500 was $74,517. 14.

117. IOL TA **2500 remains open at this time and as of May I 0, 20 I 6 had a balance of

$74,517.14.

118. Respondent is unable to account for the $74,517.14 held in IOLTA **2500.

[18)

119. As set forth in Count Four herein, respondent's conduct violates the Ohio Rules of


a. By failing to maintain accurate records of the funds held in IOLTA **2500 and

by failing to reconcile and properly account on a monthly basis, respondent

violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule

1.15(a)(3) (maintain a record for each bank account that sets forth all of the

following: (ii) the date, amount, and client affected by each credit and debit);

and, Rule 1.lS(a)(S) (perform and retain a monthly reconciliation of the items

contained in divisions (a)(2), (3), and (4) of Rule 1.15);

b. By failing to properly account for and transfer earned funds belonging to the firm

to an operating account, respondent violated the following Rule of Professional

Conduct: Rule 1.lS(b) (A lawyer may deposit the lawyer's own funds in a client

trust account for the sole purpose of paying or obtaining a waiver of bank service

charges on that account, but only in an amount necessary for that purpose); and,

c. By failing to properly identify and distribute funds held to a client or third party

with an interest in those funds, respondent violated the following Rule of

Professional Conduct: Rule 1.IS(d) (Upon receiving funds or other property in

which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the

client or third person. Except ... , a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or

third person any funds or other property that the client is entitled to receive).

(19]

COUNT FIVE Sale of Business, Failure to Do Final Accounting

120. Relator hereby incorporates the allegations of misconduct set forth in Counts One

through Four of this complaint.

121. As set forth in this complaint, respondent purchased the interest in the firm known as

Magelaner, Keating & Associates Ltd. and formerly belonging to Attorney Thomas

Magelaner effective December 31, 2011.

122. At no point during the course of the purchase transaction was an accounting

completed for all client funds in the possession of the firm.

123. As set forth in Count Five herein, respondent violated the following provision of the

Rules of Professional Conduct: By failing to account for all client funds upon the

dissolution of a law firm, respondent violated Rule 1.15(f).

COUNT SIX Failure to Inform Clients of Lack of Professional Liability Insurance


through Five of this complaint.

125. In or about December 2015, respondent's professional liability msurance earner

canceled its coverage of the firm.

126. From December 2015 through and including May 10, 2016, respondent and the firm

have accepted approximately 100 new clients.

127. Despite his obligation to do so, respondent has not informed any of his new clients

that he does not maintain professional liability insurance.

[20]

128. Despite his obligation to do so, at the time his coverage was terminated, respondent

did not inform any of the then-current clients that he no longer maintained

professional liability insurance.

129. As set forth in Count Six herein, respondent's conduct violates the Ohio Rules of


a. Rule 1.4(c) (A lawyer shall inform a client at the time of the client's engagement

of the lawyer or at any time subsequent to the engagement if the lawyer does not

maintain professional liability insurance in the amounts of at least one hundred

thousand dollars per occurrence and three hundred thousand dollars in the

aggregate or if the lawyer's professional liability insurance is terminated. The

notice shall be provided to the client on a separate form set forth following this

rule and shall be signed by the client); and,

b. Rule l.4(c)(l) (A lawyer shall maintain a copy of the [Rule 1.4(c)J notice signed

by the client for five years after termination ofrepresentation of the client).

COUNT SEVEN

Conduct Adversely Reflecting Upon Fitness to Practice Law


through Six of this complaint.

131. Respondent's repeated and systemic failure to appropriately account for client funds

is misconduct.

132. Respondent's repeated and systemic failure to appropriately account for funds due to

third parties is misconduct.

[21]

133. Respondent's repeated and systemic ignorance and/or disregard of the clear and

detailed requirements of Rule 1.15 regarding IOL TA record-keeping requirements is

misconduct.

134. Respondent's more than five-year period of failure to account for the funds in IOLTA

**2500 is misconduct.

135. Respondent's more than five-year period of failure to comply with the clear and

detailed record-keeping requirements of Rule 1.15 regarding IOLTA **2500 is

misconduct.

136. Respondent's on-going ignorance or disregard of the rule requiring him to notify his

clients of his lack of professional liability insurance, caused potential harm to his

clients and is misconduct.

137. Respondent's repeated ignorance or disregard of the rule requiring him to sign his

own fee agreements and his own closing statements is misc.onduct.

138. Respondent's knowing acts and failures to act, as set forth in this complaint, violate

the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 8.4(h) (A lawyer shall not engage in

conduct that adversely reflects upon his fitness to practice law.)

RESTITUTION


through Seven of this complaint.

140. Respondent owes all of the following amounts as restitution to Southside Therapy

Group LLC:

a. For Lauren Mack, $3,733

[22]

b. For Candice Smith, $1,416

c. For Keyanna Allen, $425

d. As and for attorney fees expended by Dr. Spurling and Southside Therapy Group

in trying to obtain payment from respondent, $706.25.

141. The total amount owed by respondent as restitution to Southside Therapy and/or

Gordon Spurling is at least $6,280.25.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, relator submits that respondent should be found in violation of these

Rules of Professional Conduct and be sanctioned appropriately.

Respectfully submitted,

e_____:__:_~_,_f<i_,_. '--:--':-~_:,.----,----. vu--=---___l.___,'.~l.R-:'..:::'.._00 '/o I Lf ;J.) Amy L. ostic (0040139) Luper, Neidenthal & Logan 1200 LeVeque Tower 50 W. Broad Street Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 229-4433/(866) 345-4948 [email protected]

[23)

Lori J. Brot,13 (0040142) Bar Counsel Columbus Bar Association 17 5 South Third Street, Suite 1100 Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 340-2053/ (614) 221-4850 (fax) [email protected]

A. Alysha Clous (0070627) Assistant Bar Counsel Columbus Bar Association 17 5 South Third Street, Suite 1100 Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 340-2034/ (614) 221-4850 (fax) [email protected]

Co-counsel for Relator

[24]

CERTIFICATE

The 1mdersigned Chairperson of the Ce1iified Grievance Committee of the Columbus Bar

Association hereby certifies that Amy L. Bostic, Esq., Judith M. Mcinturff, Esq., Lori J. Brown,

Esq., and A. Alysha Clous, Esq., are duly authorized to represent Relator in the premises and

have accepted the responsibility of prosecuting this complaint to its conclusion. After

investigation, Relator believes reasonable cause exists to warrant a hearing on such complaint.

Dated: ii /z 3 b (,. ~'£~ Signed: ~~

LfuFierce Reisz, Esq~erson Certified Grievance Committee, Columbus Bar Association

[25]

a-~-. o - ohiosc.ohio.gov/boards/boc/certifiedcases/2017/decjan/2016-071.pdf · arturo melean is or...

Documents