ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 94-49.

In a complaint filed on June 20, 1994, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent, Michael J. McDonald, Attorney Registration No. 0022740, formerly of Miamisburg, Ohio, with four counts of misconduct involving violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely reflects on attorney's fitness to practice law), 3-101(B) (practicing law in jurisdiction where such practice violates professional regulations), and 9-102(B)(1) (failing to promptly notify client of receipt of client's funds). After efforts to locate respondent failed, he was served notice of the complaint pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B) (service on Clerk of Supreme Court where attorney's whereabouts are unknown). A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court heard the matter on relator's motion for default. See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).

Respondent had been indefinitely suspended from the practice of law on April 27, 1993 for his contumacious failure to pay costs as ordered in Dayton Bar Assn. v. McDonald (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 154, 602 N.E.2d 608, in which he was publicly reprimanded for violating DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal matter). 66 Ohio St.3d 1464, 611 N.E.2d 323. The first two counts of the present complaint charged that respondent had practiced law despite the suspension of his license.

Evidence submitted to prove Count I established that respondent represented a client in a criminal case before the Eaton Municipal Court in Preble County. Jury selection was completed before the judge discovered respondent's suspension, and he was forced to excuse the panel.

As to Count II, the evidence showed that respondent agreed to defend Kerry Gephart in a criminal case during June 1993. Gephart paid respondent $300, and respondent assured Gephart that his appearance was not required at an initial hearing. Respondent subsequently moved without leaving Gephart a forwarding address, and Gephart had to hire another attorney. The new attorney discovered that respondent had missed the hearing, that Gephart had forfeited his $350 appearance bond, and that a warrant had been issued for Gephart's arrest.

Evidence submitted to prove Count III established that respondent pleaded guilty to OMVI in November 1993. He was fined $200 and ordered to pay court costs. The court also suspended his driver's license for six months and ordered him to attend a seventy-two-hour OMVI program or spend three days in jail. Respondent did not pay the fine or attend the program, and a warrant was issued for his arrest in January 1994.

Evidence submitted to prove Count IV established that Erin Flick hired respondent in April 1992 to represent her in a personal injury claim. Flick authorized respondent to accept a $2,500 settlement offer from her insurance company if his negotiations were not more fruitful. Afterward, respondent did not contact Flick, and she was unable to reach him. In November 1993, Flick learned of respondent's indefinite suspension, and she called an insurance adjuster to inquire about her settlement proceeds. She discovered that a $2,500 check had been made payable to respondent and her, that the check had been cashed in July 1993, and that respondent had endorsed her name on the check. The panel determined from this evidence that respondent had committed the misconduct charged in the complaint, and it accepted relator's suggestion to recommend indefinite suspension. The board adopted the panel's findings and its recommendation.