A Lorain County attorney has been suspended by the Ohio Supreme Court for one year for losing a client’s settlement check and failing to provide competent representation in a legal malpractice lawsuit against another lawyer.
Jeffrey Weir II was suspended by the court Wednesday with six months of the suspension stayed. The conditions on the stay is the requirement that he prove $4,983 in restitution has been made to his former client within 60 days as well as submit to an assessment by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, according to court documents. Weir also was ordered to complete continuing legal education in office management and not to commit any further misconduct.
The Supreme Court decision was 6-1, with one justice, Judith French, concurring in part and dissenting in part, stating she would not require the OLAP assessment.
Weir’s suspension is related to separate misconduct complaints brought against him by the Lorain County Bar Association and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The Supreme Court placed him on an interim suspension in March after he failed to respond to a third disciplinary complaint, which is unrelated to this matter, according to court documents.
The bar association’s charges stem from a grievance filed by Jennifer Demyan, who hired Weir in December 2015 to assist in terminating a land-
installment contract for property in Lorain County that she had entered into with sellers who live in West Virginia. In order to resolve the dispute, the sellers sent Weir a check for $4,983, but because Demyan believed she was entitled to more money, neither she nor Weir immediately attempted to cash the sellers’ check.
By June 2016, Demyan agreed to accept the money and informed Weir. Believing that the original check was stale, Weir asked the sellers for a second check, which he received in August 2016. He notified Demyan of the check and she instructed him to mail it to her.
Weir lost the check and then did not reply to five emails Demyan sent him in September and October 2016 asking about the payment, according to court documents. In November 2016, he told her that he could not locate the check and would ask the sellers for a third check.
Weir then stopped communicating with Demyan, who advised him that she would file a grievance unless he complied with his commitment to obtain another settlement check.
In July 2017, she filed her complaint with the bar association, which sent two separate letters to Weir in August 2017 regarding the matter. Weir did not respond in writing to the bar association, but appeared at a grievance committee hearing. Shortly after the meeting, he found the missing check and contacted Demyan in December 2017 about it.
After Weir communicated with the sellers’ attorney, Demyan attempted to cash the check, but the bank refused to honor it. The sellers’ attorney noted they would not write a third check.
Based on his handling of the matter, the bar association charged Weir with several violations of the rules governing the conduct of Ohio lawyers. The Board of Professional Conduct found Weir did not act with reasonable diligence in representing Demyan, failed to keep her reasonably informed of her case, did not promptly deliver property that Demyan was entitled to receive, and did not cooperate with a disciplinary investigation.
Weir objected to the board’s report, particularly to the board’s conclusion that although he said he was willing to make restitution to Demyan, he “had made no attempt to do so.”
Weir argued he continued to look for the missing check after losing it and, after finding it, attempted to obtain payment for Demyan. He claimed that Demyan and the sellers’ attorney stopped communicating with him and he did not know the sellers refused to issue a third check. He assumed she had been paid, and that his efforts constituted “significant attempts” to make restitution, according to court documents.
The court’s opinion stated it disagrees with Weir’s position, and noted that he indicated a willingness to pay restitution if Demyan had not received her money.
“Weir’s incorrect assumption” that Demyan had been paid the opinion stated, “does not change the fact that he admittedly made no attempt to pay Demyan restitution for the financial loss caused by his misconduct.”