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

Schramski, Allen County Bar Assn. v.124 Ohio St.3d 465, 2010-Ohio-630. Decided 3/2/2010.Case Summaries- 300Respondent commingled her funds with clients‘ funds and failed to notify clients she had no professionalmalpractice insurance. Respondent filed a lawsuit in April 2008 alleging that she purchased severalvehicles, made payments, but never received the titles. Respondent attached copies of checks to hercomplaint in the matter; the checks were from both her personal account and her IOLTA. The checkswere dated for September, October, and November of 2003. Relator and respondent stipulated thatrespondent used earned fees still deposited in her IOLTA, not client funds to purchase the vehicles.Respondent did not maintain appropriate record keeping of her IOLTA. During the investigation, relatorfound that respondent had never maintained proper liability insurance and failed to notify clients of this.Respondent admitted she violated DR 9-102 and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 and DR 1-104 and Prof.Cond.R.1.4(c). The board adopted the panel‘s findings of violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 and 1.4(c). The panelomitted the DR violations, viewing the violations as continuing and constituting only one rule violation ineach count. The court found violations of DR 9-102 and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 and DR 1-104 andProf.Cond.R. 1.4(c). The court noted that the board cited Halliburton-Cohen (2002) and Croushore(2006), which involved similar misconduct to that of the respondent. Both cases ordered a one-yearsuspension conditionally stayed, and involved lawyers who failed to properly account for and maintaintheir IOLTA. Further, in both cases and at present, the lawyer‘s failure to maintain the IOLTA was notdone out of dishonesty, but rather ignorance of professional bookkeeping responsibilities. Respondent‘scase was different because she failed to notify her clients that she lacked liability insurance, and shefailed to file various tax returns for the past several years. Like Halliburton-Cohen (2002) andCroushore (2006), respondent‘s lack of prior disciplinary record and cooperation during the disciplinaryprocess are mitigating factors. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d). The Court found Halliburton-Cohen and Croushore instructive, and ordered that respondent be suspended for one year, stayed on theconditions that respondent: 1) commit no further misconduct, 2) complete an additional 6 hours of CLEin law-practice management and the proper use of an IOLTA, 3) conform her office and accountingprocedures to professional standards acceptable to relator, 4) submit an independent audit of her IOLTAto the relator, 5) provide proof to the relator that she filed her delinquent tax returns, and 6) complete atwo-year probationary period under the oversight of the relator pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9). Soordered.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c), 1.15; DR 1-104, 9-102Aggravation: NONEMitigation: (a), (d)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: One-year suspension, stayed