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

Corrigan, Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v.130 Ohio St.3d 84, 2011-Ohio-4731. Decided 9/22/2011.Case Summaries- 55Respondent misappropriated and mishandled client funds, failed to maintain adequate financial records,and engaged in business relationships with clients. While under investigation for a grievance that is notat issue in this case, respondent frequently failed to respond to letters of inquiry, and phone calls andmessages. Respondent offered many excuses, including that he was ―semi-retired‖ and that he was oftenout of the country. Respondent was supposed to meet with the grievance committee to discuss hisgrievance, but phoned to say he would be late. After waiting for over an hour, the committee adjourned.Respondent admitted that he received some of the relator‘s correspondence and phone messages. Thisconduct was found to have violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate in a disciplinaryinvestigation). The Court agreed with the above findings. In aggravation, respondent failed to cooperatein a disciplinary proceeding, and failed to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct. BCGDProc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e), (g). In mitigation, respondent lacked a prior disciplinary record did not exhibit adishonest or selfish motive. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b). The board recommended a six-monthsuspension, stayed, citing Jaffe (2009), and Jones (2010). The Court agreed with the board‘srecommended sanction.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b)Aggravation: (e), (g)Mitigation: (a), (b)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension, stayed