Wednesday, October 3, 2012
A disciplinary case decided today is summarized on the web page of the Ohio Supreme Court:
The law license of [a[ former Cincinnati attorney...has been indefinitely suspended for violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in his dealings with more than 20 bankruptcy clients.
In a 7-0 per curiam decision announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted findings by its Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that [the attorney] accepted fee advances from those clients but deposited the unearned fees in his office operating account rather than in a client trust account, and spent the clients’ funds on personal and office expenses without performing the legal services for which he had been retained.
The court agreed with the board’s findings that [his] actions violated, among others, the state disciplinary rules that prohibit an attorney from neglecting entrusted client legal matters, collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee, failing to properly supervise a nonlawyer staff member, failing to properly segregate client funds in his possession from his own funds, engaging in dishonesty, deceit, fraud or misrepresentation and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
In imposing an indefinite suspension rather than permanent disbarment as the sanction for this misconduct, the court noted the mitigating factors that [the attorney] had served in the U.S. Air Force for 20 years, expressed sincere remorse and accepted full responsibility for his actions, cooperated with disciplinary authorities, and was making ongoing attempts to make restitution to his clients by paying another attorney to assist those whose cases remain unresolved. As a condition of any future reinstatement of his license, the court ordered [he] to make aggregate payments of $2,000 per month to his former clients until he has made full restitution for their fee advances, complete 12 hours of continuing legal education in law office and trust account management, and serve one year of monitored probation upon his reinstatement to the practice of law in Ohio.
The opinion is linked here. (Mike Frisch)