Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. McClain
Citation: 95 Ohio St. 3d 488Docket: No. 2001-2221
Court: Ohio Supreme Court; June 5, 2002; Ohio; State Supreme Court
In February 1999, Eric K. Robinson paid a $1,000 retainer to attorney Mark McClain for legal representation in a civil matter. A week later, Robinson was presented with a contract for a $3,500 retainer, which he refused to sign, opting instead to terminate the engagement and request a refund of his initial payment. McClain did not return the $1,000 or provide an invoice for services rendered. In June 1999, the Cleveland Bar Association commenced an investigation into McClain's conduct, but he failed to respond to their inquiries. Additionally, in a separate case involving Carolyn Ray, McClain represented her in a child custody matter but unilaterally filed a voluntary dismissal without informing her, leading to the case being barred from refiling after he neglected to oppose a motion to dismiss upon refiling. Ray also requested a partial refund of her retainer, which McClain did not provide. On December 4, 2000, the Bar Association filed a complaint against McClain for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including failing to return client funds, neglecting legal matters, and not cooperating with the disciplinary investigation. McClain did not respond to the complaint, resulting in a default ruling. Board Member W. Scott Gwinn reviewed the unrefuted allegations, concluding that McClain had violated multiple professional conduct rules. He recommended that McClain be indefinitely suspended from practicing law in Ohio and ordered to pay restitution to both Robinson and Ray of $1,000 each, with statutory interest. The board upheld these findings and recommendations, leading to McClain's indefinite suspension and restitution order, with costs taxed to him. The judgment was affirmed by Chief Justice Moyer and other justices.