Lorain Cnty. Bar Ass'n v. Weir
| Decision Date | 17 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2019-0150,2019-0150 |
| Citation | 2020 Ohio 3324,156 N.E.3d 886,160 Ohio St.3d 328 |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
| Parties | LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. WEIR. |
O'Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora Co., L.P.A., and Matthew A. Dooley ; Sheffield Village, and Wickens, Herzer, Panza, Daniel A. Cook, and Malorie A. Alverson, Avon, for relator.
Jeffrey H. Weir II, pro se.
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jeffrey Hile Weir II, of Lorain, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0067470, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997.
{¶ 2} In 2005, we briefly suspended Weir's license based on his failure to timely register for the 2005-2007 biennium. In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Weir , 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671, reinstatement granted , 107 Ohio St.3d 1705, 2006-Ohio-13, 840 N.E.2d 209.
{¶ 3} On June 5, 2019, we suspended his license for one year, with the final six months stayed on conditions, for misconduct that included losing a client's settlement check, failing to reasonably communicate with the client, failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation, and failing to provide competent representation in a different client matter. Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Weir , 156 Ohio St.3d 566, 2019-Ohio-2151, 130 N.E.3d 275. We later found him in contempt because he had not timely complied with our disciplinary order. 156 Ohio St.3d 1481, 2019-Ohio-3171, 129 N.E.3d 447.
{¶ 4} In December 2018—while Weir's prior disciplinary case was pending in this court—relator, Lorain County Bar Association, charged Weir with professional misconduct in three additional client matters. Weir failed to answer the complaint, and on March 1, 2019, we imposed an interim default suspension pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(14)(B)(1). 156 Ohio St.3d 1252, 2019-Ohio-728, 125 N.E.3d 976. Weir moved for leave to answer relator's complaint, and on May 28, 2019, we granted his motion and remanded the case to the Board of Professional Conduct, although we kept his interim default suspension in place. 155 Ohio St.3d 1466, 2019-Ohio-2057, 122 N.E.3d 1289.
{¶ 5} In August 2019, relator amended its complaint to include allegations asserted in two new grievances, although relator subsequently voluntarily dismissed the allegations relating to one of those grievances. The matter proceeded to a hearing before a three-member panel of the board at which Weir and five grievants testified. Based on the hearing evidence, the board issued a report finding that Weir engaged in the charged misconduct and recommending that we indefinitely suspend him from the practice of law, with no credit for the time he has served under his interim default suspension, and order that he pay restitution to a former client. Neither party filed objections to the board's report.
{¶ 6} Based on our review of the record, we adopt the board's findings and recommended sanction.
{¶ 7} The board found that Weir committed similar professional misconduct in four client matters. Primarily, he neglected those clients’ matters and then failed to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigations. His handling of Sunseraray Gilmore's matter is a representative example of his misconduct.
{¶ 8} In late 2017, Gilmore paid Weir $500 to file documents for her grandmother's estate and prepare an agreement transferring her grandmother's home to Gilmore's cousin Ronald Johnson. From February through June 2018, Gilmore sent Weir multiple e-mails requesting an update, but Weir failed to reply.
{¶ 9} By June 2018, after Weir had failed to take any action on Gilmore's request to transfer her grandmother's home, Gilmore abandoned that idea and focused on probating the will. The following month, Weir communicated with Gilmore about some research he had conducted on her grandmother's property. But for several months thereafter, Gilmore did not hear from him. In December 2018 and January 2019, she sent him multiple unanswered e-mails requesting that he move forward with filing the estate and update her when he had done so.
{¶ 10} In mid-February 2019, Weir e-mailed Gilmore two questions relating to the estate and Gilmore responded 30 minutes later. At that point, Weir admittedly had sufficient information to file the estate. On May 3, 2019, Gilmore sent Weir another unanswered e-mail requesting an update on the matter. Six days later, she sent him an e-mail stating that unless he filed the estate or returned her documents and $500 within 30 days, she would file a grievance against him. Thirty-one days later, Weir advised Gilmore that his license had been suspended and he was therefore unable to continue the representation. He also claimed that his legal services had exceeded her initial $500 payment but offered to refund half of that payment to resolve the matter.
{¶ 11} Gilmore then discovered that we had imposed Weir's interim default suspension several months earlier—on March 1—although Weir had failed to notify her. She again requested the return of her file. But by that point, Weir could not locate the documents Gilmore had given him, including her grandmother's original will. He never probated the estate or refunded any portion of Gilmore's fee. And after Gilmore filed a grievance, Weir failed to submit a formal response to relator.
{¶ 12} Based on this conduct, the board found that Weir violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (), 1.4(a)(3) (), 1.4(a)(4) (), 1.4(a)(5) (), 1.16(d) (), and 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) (both requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation). In addition, because Gilmore had agreed that Weir should refund half of her initial payment to either her or Johnson, the board concluded that Weir owes Gilmore or Johnson restitution in the amount of $250.
{¶ 13} As noted above, the board found that Weir committed similar misconduct in three other client matters. In one matter, he failed to attend the client's citation hearing in an estate case, failed to communicate with the client in advance of the hearing, and failed to return the client's phone calls, resulting in additional violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and 1.4(a)(4). Weir violated the same rules in the second matter by failing to file an important document in a client's bankruptcy case and then failing to respond to the client's attempts to reach him. And in the third matter, he failed to reasonably communicate with his clients regarding their civil case, failed to properly explain discovery filings and the consequences of a voluntary dismissal, and upon termination of the representation, failed to return their file, resulting in violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a) (), 1.4(b) (), and 1.16(d). In each of those matters, Weir also violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) by failing to cooperate in relator's investigation of the grievances filed by his former clients.
{¶ 14} Finally, at his disciplinary hearing, Weir acknowledged that he had failed to properly notify clients that he lacked malpractice insurance. The board therefore found four violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) ().
{¶ 15} We agree with the board's findings of misconduct.
{¶ 16} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 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 Weir has prior discipline and had...
To continue reading
Request your trial