[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




              CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MUHLBACH.
        [Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Muhlbach, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year suspension—Neglect of an entrusted
        legal matter—Failing to carry out contract of employment—Failing to
        cooperate in disciplinary investigation.
       (No. 99-808—Submitted June 9, 1999—Decided September 8, 1999.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                     Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-39.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Carol Oakar retained respondent, P. Michael Muhlbach of Parma,
Ohio, Attorney 

 to represent her in a wrongful-discharge
matter. Respondent filed an action, but failed to file a timely response to a motion
to dismiss some of Oakar’s claims, and the common pleas court dismissed those
claims with prejudice. Respondent later filed a second amended complaint for
Oakar, but then failed to file a motion for default judgment when a defendant failed
to file an answer. Respondent ultimately secured Oakar’s consent to dismiss the
remainder of the case without prejudice because the discovery cutoff date had
expired, and he recommended that Oakar refile it with another attorney who was
more experienced in employment law. Oakar followed respondent’s advice and
discharged respondent.
        {¶ 2} Oakar filed a grievance with relator, Cuyahoga County Bar
Association, and respondent initially failed to respond to relator’s investigative
inquiries. Respondent, however, subsequently appeared for a deposition conducted
by relator.
        {¶ 3} On August 25, 1998, relator filed an amended complaint charging
respondent with violating several Disciplinary Rules and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) in
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




connection with his representation of Oakar and his representation of two other
clients. In September 1998, in a separate disciplinary matter, we suspended
respondent from the practice of law for six months with the suspension stayed and
respondent placed on probation, conditioned on no further disciplinary complaints
being certified against respondent during the six-month probationary period.
Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Muhlbach (1998), 

, 

.
           {¶ 4} The matters raised by the August 1998 amended complaint were
submitted to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline
of the Supreme Court (“board”) on relator’s motion for default judgment. The
panel found the facts as previously set forth regarding the Oakar matter and
subsequent disciplinary investigation, and dismissed the charges relating to
respondents’ other clients. The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated
DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to
carry out an employment contract), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate
with a disciplinary investigation). The panel also noted that respondent did not
violate his probation in his separate disciplinary case because the amended
complaint in this case was certified before the onset of his six-month probationary
period.
           {¶ 5} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the
practice of law in Ohio for one year with six months of the suspension stayed upon
conditions. The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel, but
because of his prior disciplinary record, recommended that respondent be
suspended for the entire one-year period without any stay.
                              __________________
           Nancy J. Fleming; Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley and
Christopher M. Ernst; McCafferty & Perlman Co., L.P.A., and Robert Steely, for
relator.
                              __________________




                                        2
                               January Term, 1999




       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 6} We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
board. Although neglect of legal matters and a failure to cooperate in the ensuing
disciplinary investigation normally warrant an indefinite suspension, a one-year
suspension is appropriate here given the isolated nature of the neglect, the lack of
evidence of substantial damage to his client, and respondent’s eventual cooperation
with relator’s investigation. See, e.g., Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rollins (1999), 

, 

.            Respondent is hereby
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year. Costs taxed to respondent.
                                                            Judgment accordingly.
       MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
                              __________________




                                         3