disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Helbling, Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.
124 Ohio St.3d 510, 2010-Ohio-955. Decided 3/18/2010.
Case Summaries- 120
Respondent allowed his IOLTA account to be overdrawn and paid one client‘s debt with another client‘s
money. Relator and respondent entered into a consent-to-discipline agreement, whereby they stipulated to
the facts, violations, and sanction; the agreement was accepted by the Board. Respondent received
two checks from a client totaling $1790.92 to cover court reporting costs owed to Litigation Support
Services and put them in his IOLTA. Four days later, respondent issued a check to Litigation Support
Services for $1790.92. In the weeks after issuing the check, respondent made several online transfers
from his IOLTA to his business account and drew a check on his IOLTA for a separate client matter.
Respondent also transferred $3000 from his IOLTA to his business account for ―fees earned,‖ leaving a
balance of $556.30 in the IOLTA. At this time, the check to Litigation Support Services had still not
been presented to the bank for payment. When Litigation Support Services did deposit the check, it was
returned for insufficient funds. The next day, respondent deposited another client‘s $1500 retainer in his
IOLTA which allowed Litigation Support Services check to clear. Respondent admitted violating
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2)(iv) by failing to maintain a record of the first client‘s current balance and
outstanding checks; 1.15(a)(3)(ii) by failing to maintain a record of which client‘s funds were affected
by each IOLTA account credit and debit; 1.15(c) by failing to maintain $1,790.92, advanced by the first
client for litigation expenses, in his IOLTA; and 1.15(c) by causing a portion of a $1,500 IOLTA
deposit belonging to a another client to be misapplied to cover an overdraft. No aggravating factors were
found. In mitigation, respondent had no prior disciplinary record, exhibited a cooperative attitude and
full and free disclosure during the disciplinary process, and immediately funded his IOLTA with
personal funds upon learning of the overdraft. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (d). Public
reprimands have been imposed for similar conduct in Piszczek (2007) and Holda (2006). The Court
adopted the board‘s recommendation of the consent-to-discipline agreement, and so ordered a public
reprimand.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2)(iv), 1.15(a)(3)(ii), 1.15(c)
Aggravation: (a), (c), (d)
Mitigation: NONE
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Public Reprimand