BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSON

GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINEOF

THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

In Re:

Complaint against

Beauregard Maximillion HarveyAttorney Reg. No. 0078717

Respondent,

Toledo Bar Association

Relator.

Case No. 11-012

Findings of Fact,

ORI6AL

11-1760

Conclusions of Law andRecommendation of the -Board of Commissioners onGrievances and Discipline ofthe Supreme Court of Ohio

This matter was heard on August 25, 2011 in Columbus before a panel consisting of

Patrick L. Sink, Judge Otho Eyster, and Lawrence R. Elleman, chair. None of the panel

members is from the appellate district from which the complaint arose or served on the probable

cause panel in this matter. Relator was represented by Gordon R. Barry and Michael A.

Bonfiglio. Respondent appeared pro se. The matter was substantially stipulated. Respondent

testified on cross and direct examination. There were no other witnesses.

OVERVIEW

{¶1} Respondent engaged in a pattern of failing to timely file documents in bankruptcy

court, which resulted in his clients' bankruptcy cases being dismissed without discharge, and

mishandling a litigation matter in municipal court. As a result of Respondent's voluntary

remedial actions, the bankruptcy cases generally were reopened at Respondent's expense and

bankruptcy discharges ultimately obtained. The bankruptcy clients suffered no pecuniary harm

as a result of Respondent's misconduct, The panel finds that Respondent committed multiple

violations of Prof. Cond. R. 1.3 [diligence and promptness], Prof. Cond. R. 1.4(a)(3) [failing to

keep client reasonably informed], and Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(d) [conduct prejudicial to the

administration of justice]. The panel recommends that Respondent be suspended from the

practice of law for one year with six months stayed on the conditions that Respondent submit to

supervised probation with a monitor appointed by Relator in accordance with Gov. Bar R. V,

Section 9 during the period of his stayed suspension and that he commit no further misconduct.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Background Facts

{¶2} At the time of the misconduct, Respondent was subject to the Rules for the

Government of the Bar of Ohio and the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.

{¶3} Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2005. He is a 2001

graduate of the College of Law of the University of Toledo, and prior to his practice of law in

Ohio, he practiced in Illinois. He now practices as a sole practitioner sharing office space with

other attorneys. The primary focus of his practice is bankruptcy, criminal law, and divorce

cases. He has considerable consumer bankruptcy experience.

{¶4} The amended complaint contains four counts. Counts One and Two relate to

Respondent's representation as debtor's counsel for specific individual Chapter 7 bankruptcy

clients. These counts were submitted based solely on the parties' stipulations. (Stipulations at

¶3-16.) Count Three alleges a pattern and practice of misconduct relating to Respondent's

representation of twleve different bankruptcy clients. Five of the matters enumerated in Count

Three were fully stipulated (Stipulations at ¶17-21) and seven were contested. Count Four

involves misconduct with respect to a litigation matter in municipal court that was mostly

stipulated. (Stipulations at ¶22-24.)

2

{115} The alleged violations concerning the bankruptcy cases all involve Respondent's

failure to file required documents with the court, resulting in dismissals of his clients'

bankruptcy cases without discharges (subject to refiling). These documents include: (1) a court-

prescribed official form certifying completion of a financial management co.urse that must be

filed within 45 days (in certain circumstances 60 days) after the first date set for the meeting of

creditors (hereafter "financial management course certificate"); (2) a certificate that the debtor

has completed a credit counseling course that must be filed with the bankruptcy petition or

within fourteen days thereafter (hereafter "certificate of credit counseling"); and (3) evidence of

payments received by the debtor from his employer within 60 days before the filing of the

petition (hereafter "payment advices").

{¶6} During the relevant time period, Respondent had no effective office system for

monitoring due dates for filing the above-described documents, and he did not proactively

remind clients that such documents were due to be filed. Instead, Respondent relied on his

individual clients to cause the documents to be provided to him for filing. He did not routinely

follow up to see that he had received the documents from his client (or from the third-party

service provider that administered the educational course) or to see if the time for filing was

about to expire. In some cases, the documents were not provided to Respondent until after their

due date. In other cases, the documents were provided to Respondent in a timely manner, but he

still failed to file them with the court until long after they were due.

Count One (Kreamer)

{¶7} The client provided the financial management course certificate to Respondent in

a timely manner, but Respondent failed to file it with the court on time. The client's bankruptcy

case was dismissed by the court for failure to file the certificate on two separate occasions. Each

3

time Respondent refiled and paid the filing fee from his own pocket. Respondent failed to keep

his client informed of the status of her case and failed to respond to client requests for

information. (Stipulations at ¶3-9.) The panel finds that the stipulated facts prove by clear and

convincing evidence that Respondent violated Prof. Cond. R. 1.3, Prof. Cond. R. 1.4(a)(3) , and

Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(d).

Count Two (Sittler)

{¶8} The client provided the financial management course certificate to Respondent in

a timely matter, but Respondent failed to file it with the court on time. The client's bankruptcy

case was dismissed by the court for failure to file the certificate. Respondent refiled and paid the

filing fee from his own pocket, but Respondent did not immediately file the certificate. The

bankruptcy court issued a show cause order to Respondent for failure to follow the procedural

rules. Respondent failed to keep his client informed of the status of her case and failed to

respond to client requests for information. (Stipulations at ¶10-15.) The panel finds that the

stipulated facts prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Prof Cond. R.

1.3, Prof Cond. R. 1.4(a)(3), and Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(d).

Count Three (Pattern and Practice of Misconduct) (Stipulated Cases)

{¶9} Respondent stipulated to ule violations with respect to five bankruptcy cases. In

each case, the client's bankruptcy case was dismissed because Respondent failed to file the

financial management course certificate, although the certificate had been supplied to him on

behalf of his client in a timely manner. There were three such cases in 2008, one in 2009, and

one in 2010. In addition, during the calendar year 2009, Respondent was sanctioned by the

bankruptcy court on two occasions for failure to file necessary and appropriate documents and

was verbally admonished on the record on one occasion for his failure to timely file documents.

4

(Stipulations at ¶18-20.) Respondent has stipulated, and the panel hereby finds, that the

stipulated facts prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's misconduct

constitutes a pattern and practice of violating Prof. Cond. R. 1.3, Prof. Cond. R. 1.4(a)(3), and

Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(d). (Stipulation at ¶21.)

Count Three (Pattern and Practice of Misconduct) (Contested Cases)

{¶10} Although Respondent stipulated, and the panel so concludes, that his misconduct

as described in paragraph 9 of this report was sufficient to establish a pattern and practice as

alleged by the Relator, Respondent contested the allegations with regard to seven additional

bankruptcy cases. Much of the evidence at the hearing related to those seven cases.

{¶11} In five of the contested cases (Fair, Elchert, Freeman, Gunn, and Seiler), the

bankruptcy court closed the case without a discharge for failure to file the financial management

course certificate. In each such case, the client had, in fact, completed the financial management

course in a timely manner, but neither the client nor the third-party service provider of the

educational course had notified Respondent. Respondent did not proactively follow up to see

that the certificates were provided to him. In these cases, Respondent attended the first meeting

of creditors with the client and should have learned at that time that the financial management

course had been completed, but the certificate had not been received by him. Yet he did not

follow up in an appropriate manner.

{¶12} In addition, in one of the contested cases (Daughenbaugh), the bankruptcy court

did not dismiss the case for failure to file the financial management course certificate, but

instead, issued a show cause order for not doing so.

{¶13} In three of the seven contested cases (Daughenbaugh, Seiler, and Messenger), the

bankruptcy court issued a show cause order for failure to file the payment advices.

5

{¶14} In two of the seven contested cases (Daughenbaugh and Messenger), the

bankruptcy court issued show cause orders for failure to file the certificate of credit counseling.

There is evidence to suggest that this may have been Respondent's clerical error rather than

neglect.

{¶15} Respondent contends that his clients all received a form document directly from

the court (Relator's Ex. 10), and another packet of information from Respondent at the beginning

of his representation, that outlined the dates the various documents had to be filed and the

consequences of failure to file them. Respondent contested the allegation that these seven cases

were parf of a pattern and practice of misconduct because his clients were at fault for not

providing the documents or information to him so that he could file them with the court. The

panel rejects this argument. His clients are laymen. Respondent is a professional. The clients

paid him a fee (normally $800) for his expertise, diligence, and competence. Respondent should

have proactively monitored the cases to assure that the proper documents were being filed in a

timely manner.

{¶16} Notwithstanding the panel's conclusion in paragraph 15 above, the evidence with

respect to three of the contested cases do not constitute proof of the pattern and practice, in

whole or in part, as alleged by Relator. They are as follows:

• Freeman: The client in this case was very difficult to communicate with and did not

return telephone calls. (August 25, 2011 Hearing Tr. 33-34.) The evidence is

therefore insufficient to establish that Respondent violated Prof. Cond. R. 1.4(a)(3).

However, the client did attend the first meeting of creditors with Respondent and

Respondent should have learned at that meeting that the client had already taken the

financial management course, but the certificate had not been provided to

6

Respondent. He failed to follow up to see that the certificate was obtained.

Therefore, Respondent's conduct in connection with the Freeman case is part of his

pattern and practice of violation of Prof. Cond. R. 1.3 and Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(d).

. Gunn: The client terminated Respondent's services, but Respondent failed to file a

motion or notice of withdrawal with the court. Respondent testified that he did not

withdraw because all of the documents except for the financial management course

certificate had been filed. He believed that Gunn had completed the course and since

she would be representing herself, he assumed she would file the certificate herself.

(August 25, 2011 Hearing Tr. 37-38.) After the court dismissed the case without a

discharge, Gunn asked Respondent to reopen the case and to file the certificate, which

Respondent did without charge, except that Gunn paid the filing fee. While

Respondent should have filed a motion for leave to withdraw or a notice of

withdrawal, his failure to do so under the circumstances was not so egregious as to

warrant a finding that his representation of Gunn was a part of the pattern and

practice of violating Prof. Cond. R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), or 8.4(d).

Messenger: During the course of this case, the bankruptcy court issued three separate

show cause orders for failure to timely file required documents. The client did not

show up at the last show cause hearing, so the case was dismissed. (August 25, 2011

Hearing Tr. 52-59 and 96-97.) The case was not reopened. There is no evidence that

Messenger ever received a discharge. The evidence with respect to the Messenger

case was not fully developed at the hearing and therefore, is insufficient to establish

that Respondent's conduct was part of the pattern and practice as alleged.

7

{¶17} The panel concludes, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated

Prof. Cond. R. 1.3 and Prof Cond. R. 8.4(d) with respect to five of the seven contested cases

(Fair, Elchert, Freeman, Daughenbaugh, and Seiler), and that Respondent violated Prof. Cond.

R. 1.4(a)(3) with respect to four of the seven contested cases (Fair, Elchert, Daughenbaugh, and

Seiler). This misconduct provides further proof based on clear and convincing evidence that

Respondent engaged in a pattern and practice of misconduct as alleged in Count Three.

Count Four (Dickerson Municipal Court Case)

{1f18} Respondent was engaged by Dickerson to file a suit in small claims court for the

return of a$1,000 deposit that Dickerson had made in connection with a failed real estate

transaction. This was ultimately successful. Several weeks later, the case was transferred to the

municipal court regular docket and defendant filed a counterclaim against Dickerson for breach

of the real estate contract. Respondent failed to file an answer to defendant's counterclaim

against Dickerson. Defendant then filed a motion for default against Dickerson on the

counterclaim. Respondent was given leave to file a reply to the counterclaim on behalf of his

client, but he failed to do so. Default was entered against Dickerson. Respondent filed a motion

to vacate the default judgment that was granted and the court set the matter for further hearing on

August 9, 2010. However, Respondent and his client failed to appear at that hearing, which

resulted in a default judgment once again being granted against Dickerson. (Stipulations at ¶22-

23.)

{¶19} Respondent stipulated and the panel so concludes that his conduct in failing to file

a reply to the counterclaim and failing to inform his client of the default judgment constitutes

clear and convincing evidence of a violation of Prof. Cond. R. 1.3 and 1.4(a)(3). (Stipulation at

¶24.)

8

{¶20} Respondent testified that he had taken a fee of only $300 to successfully pursue

his client's claim for return of the $1,000 deposit in Small Claims Court, but he never agreed to

defend the later-filed counterclaim in municipal court. However, he did appear in municipal

court and he never filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. (August 25, 2011 Hearing Tr. 59-63.)

Therefore, the panel concludes that Respondent's failure to attend the August 9, 2010 hearing is

further clear and convincing proof of Respondent's misconduct as is stipulated in Count Four.

{4l21} Respondent subsequently settled with Dickerson by payment of $2,400 in

connection with his mishandling of this case. (August 25, 2011 Hearing Tr. 73.)

Respondent's Remediation Efforts

{¶22} In general, Respondent voluntarily paid the costs for refiling the bankruptcy

cases that had been dismissed without a discharge due to his failure to file documents and

charged no extra fee for reopening the cases. Respondent has settled w^ith Dickerson for his

mishandling of the municipal court case. Respondent, and the other bankruptcy attorneys with

whom he shares office space, have hired a paralegal to keep track of their bankruptcy court

calendars and have purchased a computer program to assist. Moreover, Respondent has

expressed a willingness, in the future, to proactively monitor his calendar and remind bankruptcy

clients when the time for filing certain documents is about to expire.

AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS

{¶23} The panel finds as aggravating factors that Respondent committed multiple

offenses and that he engaged in a pattern of misconduct. In addition, at the hearing, Respondent

attempted to justify some of his misconduct by blaming his clients. BCGD Proc. Reg. 10(B)(1).

{¶24} The panel finds the following mitigating factors: absence of prior disciplinary

record; absence of dishonest o r selfish motive; timely and good-faith effort to rectify the

9

consequences of his misconduct; and to alter his office practices in order to prevent it from

occurring again. Moreover, Respondent acknowledged and stipulated to numerous violations

and demonstrated a cooperative attitude at the hearing.' BCGD Proc. Reg. 10(B)(2).

RECOMMENDED SANCTION

{1125} Relator recommends a sanction of a one-year suspension with six months stayed.

Respondent acknowledges that a sanction is warranted and urges that the sanction be less severe.

{¶26} Relator cites as authority for its recommended sanction Cleveland Metro. Bar

Assn. v. Nance, 124 Ohio St.3d 57, 2009-Ohio-5957 (one-year suspension with six months

stayed for multiple neglect violations and failure to file court orders). More recently, the

Supreme Court has decided several cases where multiple instances of neglect and failure to

properly communicate with clients predominated the rule violations. Disciplinary Counsel v.

Hoppel, 129 Ohio St.3d 53, 201 1-Ohio-2672 (two-year suspension with 18 months stayed); Erie-

Huron Grievance Commt v. Stoll, 127 Ohio St.3d 290, 2010-Ohio-5985 (two-year suspension

with one-year stayed); and Dayton Bar Assn. v. Hunt, 127 Ohio St.3d 390, 2010-Ohio-6148 (six-

month suspension). In Hoppell and Stoll, Respondents' conduct was more egregious than in the

current case. In Hunt, Respondent's conduct was less egregious than in the current case, except

that Hunt failed to cooperate in the grievance process.

{¶27} The panel recommends that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for

one year with six months stayed on the conditions that he submit to supervised probationwith a

monitor appointed by the Relator in accordance with Gov. Bar R. V, Section 9 during the period

of his stayed suspension, and that he commit no further misconduct.

I There were stress factors in Respondent's personal life at the time of his misconduct, but the proof ofstress and its effect on his misconduct was insufficient to be considered in mitigation.

10

BOARD RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V, Section (L), the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio considered this matter on October 7, 2011. The Board

adopted the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of the panel and

recommends that the Respondent, Beauregard Maximillion Harvey, be suspended from the

practice of law in Ohio for one year with six months stayed on the conditions that he (1) submit

to supervised probation with a monitor appointed by the Relator in accordance with Gov. Bar R.

V, Section 9 during the period of his stayed suspension, and (2) commit no further misconduct.

The Board further recommends that the cost of these proceedings be taxed to Respondent in any

disciplinary order entered, so that execution may issue.

Pursuant to the order of the Board of Commissioners onGrievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio,I hereby certify the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusionsof Law, and RecomAendations as those of the Board.

RICT HA^OVE, Secretary

Board of Commissioners onGrievances and Discipline ofthe Supreme Court of Ohio

11

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE

OFTHE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

In re:

Complaint against:

No. 11-012

BEAUREGARD MAXIMILLION HARVEY : STIPULATIONS

RESPONDENT,

vs.

TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION

RELATOR.

AUG 2 5 2Q1}

BOARD 0" C4/1'aiPeF!v.fi',^iisiYCRq^

Now come the Relator and Respondent and stipulate and agree that all of the following

facts are true, and may be accepted as true by the Hearing Panel and Board of Commissioners for

all purposes in this litigation, without further evidence:

1. The Toledo Bar Association ("Relator") through its Certified Grievance Committee is

authorized to file this complaint pursuant to Rule V, Section 3(C) and Rule V, Section (4) of the

Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio.

2. Beauregard Maximillion Harvey ("Respondent"), Supreme Court Registration Number

0078717, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Ohio on May 9, 2005, and is subject to

the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio.

3. Respondent was retained by Laurie Kreamer to file a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding in

the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division. The

petition was filed on February 3, 2008.

4. As part of a debtor's requirement to obtain a discharge in a Chapter 7 Bankraptcy

proceeding, debtors must take a financial management course and file the certificate evidencing the

completion of said course within 45 days of the date first set for the 341 Creditor's Meeting.

5. Grievant performed the financial management course on March 21, 2008 and timely

furnished Respondent a copy of the certificate. Respondent failed to timely file the certificate.

6. As a result of the negligence ofRespondent, Grievant's Bankruptcyproceeding was closed

without a Discharge on June 4, 2008. On December 17, 2008, Respondent filed a Motion to Reopen

the case and paid out of his own pocket the filing fee of $260.00. The case was subsequently

reopened on February 24, 20009, and the Court ordered the certificate to be filed byMarch 31, 2009.

7. On Apri16, 2009, the case was closed once again without Discharge because Respondent

failed to timely file the certificate with the Court. On May 7, 2009, Respondent filed a second

Motion to Reopen the case and once again paid out ofhis own pocket the sum of $260.00 as a filing

fee. Pursuant to the Motion, the case was reopened on June 22, 2009 and the Order reopening the

case granted Respondent until July 21, 2009 to file the certificate of financial management

completion. Respondent filed the certificate on July 1, 2009 and thereafter, the Court granted

Grievant a Discharge on August 19, 2009. During the course of this proceeding in the Bankruptcy

Court, the Clerk of the Bankruptcy issued one corrective entry and four (4) notices of filing

deficiency for documents that were filed incorrectly.

2

8. Respondent failed to keep Grievant informed of the status of her case, and failed to

respond to requests for information from the Grievant.

9. As a result of Respondent's actions, he has violated the Ohio Rules of Professional

Conduct, Rule 1.3 - failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, Rule 1.4(a)(3) - failing

to keep client reasonably informed and comply with requests for information, and Rule 8.4(d) -

engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

10. Respondent was retained by Bonnie Sittler to file a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding in

the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northem District of Ohio, Western Division. The

petition was filed on July 4, 2009.

11. As part of the Debtor's requirement to obtain a discharge in a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

proceedings, debtors must take a financial management course and file the certificate evidencing the

completion of said course within 45 days of the date first set for the 341 Creditor's Meeting.

12. Grievant performed the fmancial management course on July 17, 2009 and timely

furnished Respondent a copy of the certificate. Respondent failed to timely file the certificate.

13. As a result of the negligence of Respondent, Grievant's Bankruptcy proceeding was

closed without a Discharge on October 29, 2009. OnNovember 2, 2009, Respondent filed a Motion

to Reopen the case and paid out of his own pocket the filing fee of $260.00. The case was

subsequently reopened on November 3,2009, and on November 12, 2009, a Show Cause Order was

issued to Respondent for failure to follow the procedural rules, to wit; filing the certificate of

completion of the personal finance management class.

14. Thereafter, on November 16, 2009, Respondent filed the appropriate document with the

3

Baiiln-uptcy Court and on November 17, 2009, the Grievant received their discharge.

15. Respondent failed to keep Grievant informed of the status of her case and failed to

respond to requests for information from the Grievant.

16. As a result of Respondent's actions, he has violated the Ohio Rules of Professional

Conduct, Rule 1.3 - failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, Rule 1.4(a)(3) - failing

to keep client reasonably infonned and comply with requests for information, and Rule 8.4(d) -

engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration ofjustice.

17. In addition to the failure to file the certificate of completion of financial management in

the above-referenced Kreamer and Sittler matters, there were forty-two (42) other cases filed by

Respondent in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Westem

Division, in the calendar year 2008, and three (3) of those cases were closed without a Discharge

because Respondent failed to file the timely obtained certificates of completion of financial

management class: In Re: KrieQar, No. 08-36259; In Re: Yglesias, No. 08-31632; In Re: Bowman ,

No. 08-30898.

18. In the calendar year 2009, there was one (1) case, In Re: Gibson No. 09-32716, filed by

Respondent in the United States Bankraptcy Court for the Northem District of Ohio, Western

Division, that was closed without a Discharge because of Respondent's failure to file the financial

management course certificate which had been timely obtained by the debtor.

19. In addition, during the calendar year 2009, Respondent had been sanctioned by the

Honorable Richard L. Speer, Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District

of Ohio, Western Division, on two (2) occasions for his failure to timely file necessary and

4

appropriate documents, and was been verbally admonished on the record on one (1) occasion forhis

failure to timely file documents.

20. In the calendar year 2010, through October 31, 2010, there was one (1) case, In Re:

Richardson, No. 10-31307, filed by Respondent in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, that was closed without a Discharge, because of

Respondent's failure to timely file the financial management course certificate which had been

timely obtained by the debtor.

21. Said actions on the part of Respondent constitute a patteru and practice of violating the

Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, to wit: Rule 1.3 - failing to act with reasonable diligence and

promptness, Rule 1.4(a)(3) - failing to keep the clients reasonably informed and comply with

requests for information, Rule 8.4(d) - engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration

of justice.

22. At some point prior to June 16, 2009, Respondent was retained by Charles L. Dickerson

to represent him in a small claims case to prosecute an action for the return of One Thousand Dollars

($1,000.00) earnest money being held by a realtor after a failed real estate transaction.

23. On June 16, 2009, Respondent filed a Complaint against Loss Realty Group, Thomas

Schetter, and Monica Clark. On July 20, 2009, the matter came on for trial in the Small Claims

Division of Toledo Municipal Court, and the Magistrate issued an Order to return the escrowed

funds to the Mr. Dickerson. On July 29, 2009, defendant Monica Clark filed objections to the

Magistrate's Opinion and the Magistrate's findings were set aside by the Trial Court. On October

30, 2009, the matter was transferred from the Small Claims Division to the regular division of the

5

Toledo Municipal Court and defendant, Monica Clark, was given thirty (30) days to file an answer.

On November 30, 2009, defendant Monica Clark filed an Answer and Counterclaim against Mr.

Dickerson which matter was set for trial on March 15, 2010. On February 19, 2010, defendant

Monica Clark filed a Motion for Default Judgment for the failure of Mr. Dickerson to file an answer.

On March 15, 2010, a pre-trial was held and Respondent was present in the Court and moved the

Court for leave to file an answer and counterclaim on behalf of Mr. Dickerson, which was granted by

the Court. On March 24,2010, the trial was re-set for May 17, 2010. On Apri127, 2010, defendant

Monica Clark filed a Motion for Default Judgment which was granted. On June 29, 2010,

Respondent filed a Motion to Vacate the Default Judgment on behalf of Mr. Dickerson which was

granted and a further hearing was set for August 9, 2010. On August 9, 2010, a hearing was held and

Respondent and.his client failed to appear resulting in a default judgment once again being granted

against Mr. Dickerson. On August 3, 2011, counsel for defendant Monica Clark filed a Notice of

Satisfaction of Judgment and a Motion to Vacate Default Judgment against Charles & Melinda

Dickerson and to Dismiss Case.

24. Respondent's conduct in failing to file an Answer to the Counterclaim and failing to

inform his client of the default judgment constitutes a violation of the Ohio Rules of Professional

Conduct, Rule 1.3, which provides a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in

representing a client, and fiirther a violation of Rule 1.4 which provides that the lawyer shall keep the

client reasonably informed about the status of the matter.

Respectfully submitted,

6

Beau Harvey (007871425 Jefferson Ave., SToledo, Ohio 43604Telephone: (419) 720-0400

Respondent

.^. ZU

Gordon R. Barry, Esq. 010883)Barry & Feit420 Madison Ave., Suite 1010Toledo, Ohio 43604Telephone: (419) 241-6285

Michael A. Bonfiglio (0029478)Bar CounselToledo Bar Association311 N. Superior St.Toledo, Ohio 43604-1454Telephone: (419) 242-4969

Attorneys for Relator

7