Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Peters

Supreme Court of Ohio

December 19, 2019

Disciplinary Counsel
v.
Peters.

          Submitted September 11, 2019

          On Certified Report by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2018-042.

          Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

          John Ivor Peters, pro se.

          PER CURIAM.

         {¶ 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 settlement proceeds.

         {¶ 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 filed.

         {¶ 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.

         Misconduct

         The O'Connor Matter

         {¶ 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 settlement offer.

         {¶ 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.