Skip to main content

Cleveland Bar Assn. v. McClain

OhioJune 5, 2002No. 2001-2221Cited 2 times
Defendant WinMcClain
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Disciplinary case before Cleveland Bar Association; indefinite suspension imposed

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Attorney McClain was indefinitely suspended and ordered to provide restitution to clients for multiple instances of professional misconduct including failure to deliver client funds, neglect of legal matters, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings.

Excerpt

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension—Restitution to clients ordered—Failing to promptly deliver to client funds or property to which client is entitled—Failing to seek lawful objectives of client—Failing to carry out contract for professional employment—Prejudicing or damaging client during course of professional relationship—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter—Neglecting or refusing to assist or testify in a disciplinary investigation or hearing.

What This Ruling Means

# Case Summary: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. McClain ## What Happened Attorney McClain was accused of serious misconduct affecting clients. The Cleveland Bar Association brought charges that McClain failed to give clients their money when required, didn't pursue clients' legal goals, neglected their cases, and refused to cooperate when the bar association investigated complaints. ## What the Court Decided The court found McClain guilty of professional misconduct. As punishment, McClain received an indefinite suspension, meaning he cannot practice law unless he's later reinstated. Additionally, McClain was ordered to repay clients the money owed to them. ## Why This Matters for Workers This case shows that attorneys can face serious consequences—including losing their license—for mishandling client funds and abandoning cases. If you hire a lawyer and they don't return your money or ignore your case, you have protections. You can file complaints with your state bar association, which has the power to investigate, suspend, or permanently ban lawyers from practicing. This ruling reinforces that lawyers must follow strict rules protecting clients' interests and money.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Young
OhioJul 2000

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Two-year suspension with second year of suspension stayed with one-year probation—Engaging, in a professional capacity, in conduct involving discrimination prohibited by law because of race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability—Finding of discrimination by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or a state or federal court is not a prerequisite to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline finding that an attorney violated DR 1-102(B).

Defendant Win
State ex rel. Haydocy v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys.
OhioMay 2026
Defendant Win
State ex rel. AutoZone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
OhioNov 2024

Workers' compensation—Temporary-total-disability compensation—R.C. 4123.56—Employee who had already been terminated for violation of employment policies before his shoulder surgery was not "unable to work" as "direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease" under plain language of R.C. 4123.56(F) and thus was not entitled to receive temporary-total-disability compensation—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and writ granted.

Defendant Win
Shabazz
OhioNov 2024

Quo warranto—Mandamus—Appellants failed to challenge court of appeals' judgment dismissing their quo warranto claim on basis of laches and therefore waived that argument—Court of appeals' determination that appellants could not establish entitlement to city-council offices or that appellees were unlawfully holding the positions affirmed—Court of appeals' denial of request for writ of mandamus ordering continued payment of salaries and benefits as moot affirmed.

Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.