[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                      DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION V. ANDREWS.
              [Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Andrews, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year suspension with conditions for
        reinstatement—Charging an excessive fee for work performed—Failure
        to return client’s papers and unearned fees upon withdrawal from
        employment—Failure to withdraw from employment when mental or
        physical condition renders further employment unreasonably difficult—
        Continuing employment while under a conflict of interest—Neglecting an
        entrusted legal matter—Failing to promptly return to client funds client is
        entitled to receive.
       (No. 96-2807—Submitted March 19, 1997—Decided June 25, 1997.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-91.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} On December 4, 1995, the relator, Dayton Bar Association, charged
respondent, Charles G. Andrews of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 

 in four counts with violating several Disciplinary Rules while
representing clients in bankruptcy cases.
        {¶ 2} At a November 25, 1996 hearing before a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Discipline and Grievances of the Supreme Court (“board”), the
following facts were stipulated and the panel made the following conclusions.
                                        Count One
        {¶ 3} On March 4, 1994, Keith Henry paid respondent $160 to file a petition
under Chapter 13 of the federal Bankruptcy Code. Shortly after the payment
Henry’s car was repossessed. On April 14, 1994, Henry and his wife delivered all
their original financial information to respondent and paid him an additional $250
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




fee to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition for them. After the Henrys signed the
petition Henry’s wages were garnished twice and after each garnishment
respondent told Henry that he was waiting for a court date. Shortly thereafter,
Henry’s wages were garnished a third time and his wife’s credit union account was
attached. Respondent falsely continued to assure the Henrys that their bankruptcy
petition had been filed and, after the Henrys employed new counsel, respondent
failed to respond to that counsel’s letters, to return phone calls, and to return the
Henrys’ payments or papers to them. The panel concluded that with respect to the
representation of the Henrys, respondent had violated DR 2-106(A) (charging an
excessive fee for the work performed), 2-110(A)(2) and (3) (failure to return a
client’s papers and unearned fees upon withdrawal from employment), 2-110(B)(3)
(failure to withdraw from employment when mental or physical condition renders
further effective employment unreasonably difficult), 5-105(B) (continuing
employment while under a conflict of interest), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a legal
matter entrusted to him), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly return to the client
funds the client is entitled to receive).
                                      Count Two
        {¶ 4} In June 1994, Charles Hardy and Clara Hardy paid respondent $514
to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. When the Hardys appeared in bankruptcy
court on January 12, 1995, the Chapter 13 trustee said that no plan had been filed
and the Hardys were given a two-week continuance. Although an attorney
associated with respondent appeared at the continued hearing and assured the
trustee that the Hardys would file a plan, that attorney refused to file a plan unless
the Hardys paid additional fees, which they were financially incapable of doing.
No plan was ever filed. With respect to his representation of the Hardys, the panel
concluded that respondent had violated DR 2-106(A), 2-110(A)(3), 2-110(B)(3), 6-
101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4).




                                            2
                               January Term, 1997




                                   Count Three
       {¶ 5} In early August 1992, Tara Washington hired respondent to file a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Washington could not continue payments under
the Chapter 13 plan and was advised by the bankruptcy court that she could convert
her case to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Respondent told Washington that although the
bulk of her debts were student loans which were normally nondischargeable in
Chapter 7, for $425 he would convert her case to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and file
for a hardship discharge. He did not advise Washington that the discharge of her
student loans for hardship reasons was highly unlikely.         Washington paid
respondent the $425 and he converted her case to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In
January 1995, Washington received a notice of discharge from the bankruptcy
court. In March 1995, Washington began receiving payment demands for her
student loan obligations. When Washington contacted respondent’s office, she was
told that he was no longer practicing law. With respect to his representation of
Washington, the panel concluded that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3).
                                   Count Four
       {¶ 6} In June 1994, respondent received $515 from Betty Lowrie to file a
Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, but respondent did not file the bankruptcy or advise
Lowrie that he was withdrawing from representing her. With respect to his
representation of Lowrie, the panel concluded that respondent had violated DR 2-
106(A), 2-110(A)(3), 2-110(B)(3), 6-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4).
       {¶ 7} The parties stipulated that respondent began having psychological
problems in September 1994, and that he was evaluated and treated for anxiety and
depression in December 1994. Respondent withdrew from the practice of law in
January 1995. In March 1995, respondent’s wife filed for divorce, and his son was
killed in an auto accident in mid-1995.
       {¶ 8} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for one year, that within sixty days of the effective date of his




                                          3
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




suspension he make restitution of $410 to the Henrys, $514 to the Hardys, $515 to
Lowrie, and $425 to Washington, and that his readmission be conditioned upon
such restitution.   The panel further recommended that respondent continue
psychological counseling or therapy up to and until his readmission, and that his
readmission also be conditioned on a recommendation from a mental health
professional acceptable to relator. The panel further recommended that relator have
the authority to obtain an independent examination of respondent’s psychological
fitness to practice law, and that relator monitor respondent’s practice for twelve
months after readmission.
       {¶ 9} The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel and
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Further, the board, modifying the panel’s suggested sanction, recommended that
prior to reinstatement, respondent demonstrate, in the manner set forth in the
panel’s recommendations, that he has made restitution, received counseling, and is
psychologically fit for practice, in addition to the conditions listed in Gov.Bar R.
V(10)(A).
                              __________________
       Mary L. Wiseman, for relator.
       Ronnie L. Wingate, for respondent.
                              __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 10} As we noted in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Flanagan (1997), 

, 

, “[t]he counseling of a client in financial
matters, particularly about his or her choice of remedies under the Bankruptcy Code
and whether a bankruptcy proceeding can be avoided, is a serious matter that
deserves the attention of a qualified attorney.” If the attorney cannot or will not
give this matter his necessary attention, or is not qualified to handle the matter he
undertakes, he violates our Disciplinary Rules.



                                          4
                                January Term, 1997




       {¶ 11} Respondent received fees from four clients on four separate
occasions to handle bankruptcy matters. He failed to file two of the cases, with the
result in one case that the client’s automobile was repossessed, his wages were
garnished three times, and his wife’s bank account was attached. In another case,
respondent failed to file a Chapter 13 plan, which normally should have been filed
with the Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition or within fifteen days thereafter. Fed.R.
Bankr. P. 3015(b). All three of these matters indicate a clear neglect of entrusted
legal matters.
       {¶ 12} In the Washington case, the respondent failed to file a motion for a
hardship discharge of his client’s student loans, nor did he advise her that a hardship
discharge was extremely unlikely.
       {¶ 13} In each of these four cases, respondent failed to give necessary
attention to his clients’ problems. We have previously found that neglect of client
matters warrants suspension. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Clark (1996), 

, 

; Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley (1996), 

, 

. Moreover, respondent lied to his clients, leading them to
believe he had taken appropriate action on their behalf, and he failed to return fees
to the clients for work he had not performed. Such activity has also warranted
suspension with reinstatement conditioned upon restitution. Cincinnati Bar v.
Hatfield (1997), 

, 

. To respondent’s credit, he
terminated his legal practice when he realized, albeit belatedly, that he was no
longer capable of providing effective representation.
       {¶ 14} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
board. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year. As
conditions to reinstatement, respondent shall, in addition to the conditions of Gov.
Bar R. V (10)(A), demonstrate that within sixty days of the date of this order he has
made restitution of $410 to the Henrys, $514 to the Hardys, $515 to Lowrie, and
$425 to Washington, that he has continued psychological counseling or therapy up




                                          5
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




to and until his readmission and that his readmission has been recommended by a
mental health professional acceptable to relator. In addition, relator shall have the
authority to obtain an independent examination of respondent’s psychological
fitness to practice law and relator shall monitor respondent’s practice for twelve
months after readmission. Costs are taxed to respondent.
                                                             Judgment accordingly.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                              __________________




                                          6