Submitted September 11, 2019
Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct of the
Supreme Court, No. 2018-042.
M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Ivor Peters, pro se.
1} Respondent, John Ivor Peters, of Pataskala, Ohio,
Attorney Registration No. 0033246, was admitted to the
practice of law in Ohio in 1975. We suspended him from the
practice of law for 12 days in November 2017 based on his
failure to register as an attorney for the 2017/2019
biennium. See In re Attorney Registration Suspension of
Peters, 151 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2017-Ohio-8409, 85 N.E.3d
754. Peters served a second attorney-registration suspension
from November 1 until December 2, 2019, due to his failure to
register for the 2019/2021 biennium. See In re Attorney
Registration Suspension of Peters, 157 Ohio St.3d 1472,
2019-Ohio-4529, 134 N.E.3d 183.
2} In a formal complaint filed with the Board of
Professional Conduct on August 28, 2018, relator,
disciplinary counsel, charged Peters with multiple violations
of the Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his alleged
failure to competently represent two clients, neglect of
their legal matters, and mishandling of one client's
3} The parties entered into stipulations of fact,
misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors and
jointly recommended that Peters be suspended from the
practice of law for one year, fully stayed on conditions.
4} After a hearing before a panel of the board, the
board issued a report finding that Peters committed the
stipulated violations and recommending that we adopt the
parties' proposed sanction. No objections have been
5} We adopt the board's findings of misconduct
and agree that a conditionally stayed one-year suspension is
the appropriate sanction in this case.
6} On August 4, 2015, Mary O'Connor retained
Peters to pursue claims arising from an automobile accident
in which another driver struck O'Connor's vehicle
from behind, causing O'Connor to suffer personal injuries
and destroying her hearing aids. After executing a written
contingent-fee contract, Peters spoke with a representative
of the other driver's insurance company about
O'Connor's claims. Although he informed the insurance
company that O'Connor's hearing aids had been
destroyed and that their replacement cost was approximately
$7, 000, he made no settlement demand and received no
7} On March 12, 2016, more than seven months after
retaining Peters, O'Connor received a letter from the
insurance company informing her that although her medical
insurer had made a subrogation demand in excess of $5, 600,
her claim remained unresolved because the company had not
received any medical bills or records to support her injury
claim. O'Connor provided Peters with a copy of the
letter, but he waited until October 19, 2016, to file a
complaint on her behalf. He also failed to respond to the
defendant's motion to dismiss, which ...