The Supreme Court of Ohio today issued a two-year suspension to a Cincinnati attorney who neglected five client matters and pocketed $4,750 in fees from clients for work he did not complete.

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court suspended Calvin S. Tregre Jr. and placed certain conditions for reinstatement to the practice of law. If Tregre is reinstated, he must serve one year of monitored probation overseen by another attorney.

Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Michael P. Donnelly, and Melody Stewart joined the opinion.

In a separate opinion, Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy noted the majority did not impose specific conditions for Tregre’s monitored probation. She wrote that she would impose five conditions: 1) Tregre give the monitoring attorney copies of new or modified fee agreements he makes with clients monthly, 2) that Tregre provide the monitoring attorney his Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (IOLTA) statements for review monthly, 3) the monitoring attorney randomly review Tregre’s active case files monthly to ensure his compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct, 4) that Tregre and the monitoring attorney design a comprehensive plan that ensures Tregre diligently represents his clients, and 5) Tregre complete three hours of continuing legal education on IOLTA maintenance.

Justice Joseph T. Deters joined Chief Justice Kennedy’s opinion. Justice Jennifer Brunner did not participate in the case.

Attorney Ignores Client Communications
In September 2023, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against Tregre with the Board of Professional Conduct regarding matters Tregre handled between 2019 and 2023. The board found Tregre committed 24 professional conduct rule violations and initially refused to participate in the disciplinary counsel’s investigation of the complaints against him. Several violations occurred when Tregre failed to file lawsuits on behalf of his clients and ignored their inquiries.

In 2022, Anthony Landingham hired Tregre to represent him in a workplace discrimination claim. Landingham agreed to pay a $2,250 retainer to Tregre, and Tregre agreed he would be paid $250 per hour for the legal work he performed.

Tregre deposited Landingham’s cash payment into his IOLTA in mid-April. Within six days, Tregre paid himself $2,200 from the account and withdrew the rest of the retainer two weeks later.

Landingham could not reach Tregre by phone calls or text messages for nearly a year despite repeated attempts. When Tregre met with Landingham in March 2023, Tregre said he would be filing a complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. After the meeting, Tregre again stopped responding to Landingham’s inquiries and never filed the complaint. He also did not return any portion of Landingham’s $2,250 retainer.

Tregre engaged in similar conduct while representing Gwinette Landrum. After having back surgery in April 2021, Landrum hired Tregre in June 2021 to file a medical malpractice lawsuit. Between August and October 2021, Tregre spoke briefly to Landrum on the phone and met with her once at her home.

Tregre sent a letter in November 2021 to the surgeon Landrum was looking to sue, notifying the doctor to preserve evidence in the case. Tregre requested that the surgeon inform his lawyer or insurance company and have them contact him. Landrum made repeated efforts over several months to contact Tregre, but he did not offer her any substantive information about the case. She sent Tregre two letters by certified mail, which went unanswered. Tregre never filed a lawsuit on Landrum’s behalf.

Lawyer Provided Limited Information to Disciplinary Investigators
In response to grievances filed by Tregre’s clients, the disciplinary counsel sent multiple letters to the attorney by mail, email, and hand delivery. The office also called him, issued subpoenas for documents, and scheduled depositions. Tregre replied only to certain communications and sought multiple extensions to respond to the inquiries.

He met with disciplinary investigators in March 2022 and March 2023. He promised to provide the requested documents, but the disciplinary counsel noted that Tregre did not submit any written responses to investigators or provide any of the requested documents before the office filed a formal complaint with the board. The disciplinary counsel noted that once Tregre was charged, he fully cooperated.

At his disciplinary hearing, the board noted that Tregre had practiced law for nearly 18 years without incident before clients began filing complaints in 2020. Tregre testified that his wife suffered a catastrophic medical crisis in 2017, and she needed constant care. Following the crisis, Tregre became his wife’s primary caregiver, and he testified that he lost two jobs and opened his own solo practice in 2020. The misconduct began during the time he was in practice by himself, the Court’s opinion noted.

The board found Tregre committed several rule violations, including failure to keep his clients reasonably informed of their legal matters, improperly withdrawing fees from his client trust account for work that was not performed, and failing to promptly refund client fees he did not earn. He also failed to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation.

The Court adopted the board’s recommendation that Tregre be suspended for two years and pay restitution within 90 days of $2,250 to Landingham and $2,500 to another client. He must complete three hours of continuing legal education on law office management and work with a monitoring attorney for one year if reinstated. He was also directed to pay the cost of the disciplinary proceedings.

2024-0493. Disciplinary Counsel v. Tregre, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-3173.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.