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

Case Summaries- 17intermittently overdrawn during eight months in 2006. The bank closed the account in January 2007,reopened it, but closed it again because of overdrafts in September, October, and November 2007. InNovember 2006, WaMu sued respondent and Lincoln for conversion of the settlement check and obtaineda default judgment against respondent for $34,380, plus interest, costs, and attorney fees. The judgmententry directed respondent to remit the funds within seven days of the order, but he had not done so asof the hearing. Board found violations of DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 9-102(B)(3),Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 3.4(c), 8.1(b), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h). As aggravating factors were respondent‘sdishonest and selfish motives, pattern of offenses, multiple offenses, lack of cooperation, vulnerablevictims, failure to make restitution. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (h), and (i). Inmitigation, his suffers from a qualifying mental disability under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)(i)through (iv). Since April 2007, he has been under the care of a clinical psychologist who diagnosedrespondent with depression and posttraumatic stress disorder partially related to his military service inVietnam during the early 70‘s. Board accepted the testimony was offered by the clinical psychologist andan OLAP clinical director, as well as the compelling testimony of respondent. The board recommendedan indefinite suspension with conditions for reinstatement to include full restitution to Brown in theamount of $1,739.00 in bank fees and service charges; full payment of judgment in the WaMu matterin the amount of $34,380.00 plus interest, costs and attorney fees, evidence of ongoing compliance withOLAP; evidence from competent mental health professional certifying compliance with OLAP treatmentrecommendations and that respondent is capable of returning to the competent practice of law. TheSupreme Court of Ohio noted that attorneys are routinely disbarred for the host of ethical infractions,including misappropriation of client funds that respondent committed, but that when mitigating factorssignificantly outweigh aggravating factors the court has ordered indefinite suspension. The court agreedwith the Board‘s findings of violations and recommended sanction of indefinite suspension with theadditional conditions of reinstatement and so ordered.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(h)(2), 1.15, 1.15(a), 3.4(c), 8.1(b), 8.4(b). 8.4(c), 8.4(d), 8.4(h); DR1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A), 1-104(B), 6-101(A)(3), 6-101(A)(3), DR 9-102(B)(3);Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)Aggravation: (b), (c), (d), (e), (h), (i)Mitigation: (g)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension