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

Laatsch, Disciplinary Counsel v.123 Ohio St.3d 140, 2009-Ohio-4204. Decided 8/27/2009.Case Summaries- 166Respondent advanced funds, personally and from his client trust account, to a personal injury client. Anoverdraft on his IOLTA triggered this disciplinary investigation. Respondent was a general practitionerwho had extensive experience in bankruptcy. In 2004, he agreed to represent a client in a personalinjuryclaim against a fast-food restaurant. He had previously successfully represented the client andthe client‘s sister who were injured in a traffic accident. He assisted the client in a variety of legalmatters. The attorney-client relationship spanned approximately 15 years. The client was a single fatherwho had filed for bankruptcy. His home was in foreclosure. The client prevailed upon respondentbetween August 2004 and May 2007 to advance funds for living expenses in anticipation of the damagesthe client hoped to recover from the restaurant. Respondent lent him $5400. He lent approximately$3400 from the IOLTA and approximately $2000 from his personal bank account. Respondent kept trackof each disbursement through ledger entries. There were 17 disbursements of up to $300 each. In May2007, they settled with the restaurant for $5,500. The client repaid the loans with the settlement proceeds.Respondent deposited the funds in the IOLTA and withdrew the money to pay himself and gave theremaining $100 to the client. He did not charge a legal fee. Board adopted the panel‘s findings ofviolations of DR 1-102(A)(6), 5-103(B), and 9-102(B)(3). There were no aggravating features. Inmitigation, there was an absence of disciplinary record, absence of dishonest or selfish motive, and fulland free disclosure or cooperation; and eight letters from attorneys including one judge attesting to hiscompetence and integrity as a lawyer and his devotion to his family. Board adopted the panel‘srecommendation of a six-month suspension stayed on condition of no further misconduct. Boarddistinguished this case, in which respondent was a father-figure for the client for a number of years,cooperated with relator, and is no threat to the public, from Freeman (2008) who received an actualsuspension and whose misconduct included disregard for the disciplinary system and a diagnosis of‗adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood‘ for which an actual suspension served thedual purpose of protecting the public and allowing respondent time to complete treatment and recovery.Supreme court adopted the Board‘s findings, conclusions of DR 1-102(A)(6), 5-103(B), and 9-102(B)(3)violations, and recommended sanction and so ordered a six-month suspension stayed on condition of nofurther misconduct.Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(6), 5-103(B), 9-102(B)(3)Aggravation: NONEMitigation: (a), (b), (d), (e)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension, stayed