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

LaRue, Disciplinary Counsel v.122 Ohio St.3d 445, 2009-Ohio-3604. Decided 7/29/2009.Case Summaries- 174In 2006-2007, respondent deposited personal funds into his client trust account; used funds in hisclient trust account for various business and personal expenses; and failed to keep client ledgers duringthat period. Panel accepted in full the stipulations of respondent and relator as to findings, conclusions,mitigating factors, and recommended sanction. The mitigating factors are an absence of a priordisciplinary record, absence of a selfish or dishonest motive, and respondent‘s full cooperation in thedisciplinary proceeding. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (d). Panel concluded there wereviolations of DR 1-102(A)(6), 9-102(A), and 9-102(B)(3) for the acts committed prior to February 1, 2007and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2), and 8.4(h) for the acts committed after February 1, 2007 andrecommended a suspension for one year stayed on conditions that his client trust account be monitoredfor a one-year probationary period by a relator-appointed attorney experienced in handling client fundsand that respondent commit no further misconduct during the probationary period. Board adopted thepanel‘s findings and conclusions, but recommended a suspension for six months, all stayed upon conditionthat for one year, respondent have a monitor appointed by relator to oversee the trust account. TheSupreme Court of Ohio adopted the board‘s findings, conclusions, and recommended sanction and soordered. One justice dissented and would have suspended the respondent for one-year.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2), 8.4(h); DR 1-102(A)(6), 9-102(A), 9-102(B)(3)Aggravation: NONEMitigation: (a), (b), (d)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension, stayed