We accept the findings and conclusions of the board. In a previous case involving failure to file an Ohio estate tax return, we imposed a public reprimand. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Stocker (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 46, 547 N.E.2d 1175. Here, because of his inexperience, respondent not only failed to file an estate tax return but also neglected a number of other probate matters. This is a case where mentoring is warranted. We therefore accept the board’s recommendation and suspend respondent from the practice of law for six months, but we stay the entire suspension subject to respondent’s being monitored for the duration of the suspension as determined by relator. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

dissenting. Respondent’s course of conduct depicts a great deal more than inexperience. A lawyer new to the practice of law should not be excused for (1) issuing an insufficient-funds check to his client from his trust account, (2) twice ignoring requests from courts for status letters, (3) being cited five times for past-due probate filings, (4) twice failing to appear at citation hearings with resulting contempt of court charges, (5) ignoring the responsibility to file a tax return rather than seeking assistance, and (6) espousing a “didn’t get to it” reason for failure to fulfill the responsibility he accepted as a fiduciary. Diligence is not a “goal” to be reached through experience in the practice; it is a requirement from the first day. The public is entitled to be protected from lawyers who will not perform, in the manner of a competent professional, the work for which they were engaged. I would, therefore, suspend the respondent for one year.