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

Newcomer, Disciplinary Counsel v.
119 Ohio St.3d 351, 2008-Ohio-4492. Decided 9/11/2008.
Case Summaries- 229
Respondent commingled his own funds with his clients‘ funds. Panel and board accepted the consent to
discipline agreement entered into by relator and respondent, finding violations of DR 1-102(A)(6) and 9-
102(A) and recommending a sanction of a six-month stayed suspension. Prior to June 2006 he
maintained a trust account with a bank. In June 2006, the bank notified him he had overdrawn his
account by $132.60 on one occasion and $258.48 on another occasion. Respondent admitted he used the
account for his personal finances. He explained he had done so because the bank closed his personal
bank account related to his poor financial condition. The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the consent to
discipline agreement and so ordered a suspension of six-months stayed on condition of no further
misconduct.
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(6), 9-102(A)
Aggravation: NONE
Mitigation: NONE
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension, stayed