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

Medley, Disciplinary Counsel v.
128 Ohio St.3d 317, 2011-Ohio-234. Decided 1/27/2011.
Case Summaries- 212
In 2001, respondent received a public reprimand in Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley (2001), 93 Ohio
St.3d 474. In 2004, he received a suspension for 18 months with six months stayed and was currently
suspended, without pay, from his position as judge of the probate court in Gallia County in
Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley, 104 Ohio St.3d 251, 2004-Ohio-6402. In December 2005, he was
reinstated to the practice of law. In 2010, relator filed this complaint. The parties stipulated to the
findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended sanction. Respondent cashed state payroll warrants
totaling $71,405 in gross wages and made false statements in 2009 claims for the reissuance of four
expired payroll warrants. These payments were erroneously issued by the state in 2005 while
respondent was suspended without pay. The board adopted the panel‘s findings of the stipulated
violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), as well as DR 1-102(A)(6) and Prof.Cond.R.
8.4(h). In aggravation, the board found that respondent had a prior disciplinary record and acted with a
dishonest or selfish motive. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a) and (b). In mitigation, the parties stipulated
that respondent provided full and free disclosure during the investigation, was cooperative during the
disciplinary proceedings, and had positive character evidence. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c), (d), and (e).
The panel and board adopted the stipulated recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension, but further
recommended that respondent not be permitted to petition the court for reinstatement until he has paid full
restitution to the state of Ohio. The court observed that respondent failed to respond to the court‘s
initial inquiries into respondent‘s receipt of the payroll warrants, and further noted that the two character
letters submitted by colleagues attesting to good character and touting his work with the local high
school mock trial program are of minimal value in light of respondent‘s actions. The court adopted the
board‘s recommended sanction, and ordered an indefinite suspension and conditioned any future
petition for reinstatement upon payment of full restitution to the state.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), 8.4(h); DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6)
Aggravation: (a), (b)
Mitigation: (c), (d), (e)
Prior Discipline: YES (x2) Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: YES Sanction: Indefinite Suspension