2011-Ohio-4776, 953 N.E.2d 845
No. 2005-0398.Supreme Court of Ohio.
September 22, 2011.
Disciplinary Case
On December 7, 2005, this court permanently disbarred respondent, Michael Troy Watson. On April 3, 2006, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a motion for an order to appear and show cause, requesting the court to issue an order directing respondent to appear and show cause why he should not be found in contempt for continuing to practice law in violation of the court’s December 7, 2005 order. On May 11, 2006, this court granted that motion and ordered respondent to file a written response on or before May 31, 2006. Respondent did not file a response, and the court ordered respondent to appear before the court on August 8, 2006. Respondent appeared as ordered.
On August 21, 2006, the court issued an order remanding this case to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline to appoint a master commissioner to hear the matter. On April 19, 2007, the board filed findings of fact with the court.
On May 10, 2007, the court found respondent in contempt for engaging in the practice of law after he was disbarred on December 7, 2005; ordered respondent sentenced to 90 days in jail, with the jail time suspended on the condition that respondent commit no further contempt of the December 7, 2005 order of disbarment; fined respondent $10,000, with $9,500 of that fine suspended on condition that respondent commit no further acts constituting the unauthorized practice of law; and ordered respondent to pay the remaining $500 balance of the fine. Respondent failed to pay the fine, and the matter was referred to the Office of the Attorney General for collection.
On May 4, 2011, relator filed a motion for an order to appear and show cause, asking the court to once again hold respondent in contempt for failing to comply with the court’s December 7, 2005, and May 10, 2007 orders; requesting that the respondent be ordered to serve the stayed 90 day jail sentence; and requesting that respondent be ordered to pay the entire $10,000 fine. Respondent was ordered to appear before the court on September 7, 2011, which he did.
Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered by this court that respondent is found to be in contempt of this court and has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. It is further ordered that respondent shall not engage in the practice of law in Ohio, which includes, but is not limited to, the preparation and signing of pleadings, deeds, motions, and any other documents on behalf of another. It is further ordered that if respondent fails to comply with this order and all other orders issued by the court in this case, the court may take further action against him.