Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Griffith

Citation: 2000-Ohio-80

Docket Number: 20000840

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-11-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Griffith, 90 Ohio St.3d 310, 2000-Ohio-80.] 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GRIFFITH. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Griffith (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 310.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with eighteen months of 
suspension stayed on conditions — Engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Neglect of an entrusted 
legal matter — Failing to deposit funds of clients in a trust account — 
Neglecting or refusing to assist or testify in disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 00-840 — Submitted July 6, 2000 — Decided November 15, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-25. 
 
Relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, in a complaint filed on April 12, 
1999, charged respondent, Martin Stewart Griffith of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0064443, with violations of the Disciplinary Rules.  In the two-
count complaint, relator charged respondent with violating DR 9-102(A) (failing 
to deposit all funds of clients paid to lawyer, other than advances for costs and 
expenses, in a trust account), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting legal matter entrusted to 
lawyer), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law) (two violations), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)1 
(neglecting or refusing to assist or testify in disciplinary investigation).  
Respondent answered, generally admitting the allegations contained in the 
complaint, and a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) heard this matter on March 31, 2000. 
 
 
2 
 
Respondent represented Kathleen Rose Vacheresse, who had been injured 
in an automobile accident on June 9, 1996.  Vacheresse agreed to pay respondent 
a one-third contingency fee based on any settlement he achieved for her. 
 
Following negotiations with the insurance company, respondent received a 
check for $12,300 to settle Vacheresse’s claim.  After Vacheresse endorsed the 
check, respondent deposited it in his personal checking account.  From this 
account, respondent issued checks to Vacheresse for her share of the settlement 
and to all the medical providers as agreed except Mount Carmel Health.  
Nevertheless, respondent paid his personal expenses out of this account, drawing 
down the account balance to below an amount sufficient to pay Mount Carmel 
Health.  When Mount Carmel Health did not receive payment, it filed a collection 
action against Vacheresse, adversely affecting her credit. 
 
After unsuccessful attempts to negotiate a reduction in the amount due 
Mount Carmel Health, respondent borrowed $1,900 from his mother to pay this 
outstanding bill.  Finally, nearly a year after receiving the settlement check, 
respondent paid the bill due Mount Carmel Health. 
 
When Vacheresse complained to relator about respondent’s actions in her 
case, relator opened an investigation.  Relator sought copies of canceled checks 
relating to Vacheresse’s case and copies of bank statements for his IOLTA for the 
time when respondent negotiated the settlement.  Respondent provided the 
requested checks, albeit two months after relator requested them, but stalled on 
providing bank statements until relator subpoenaed them. 
 
At a deposition, respondent admitted that the bank statements had been 
available and that he had not provided them because they would have shown that 
he had commingled client funds with his personal funds.  Respondent failed to 
bring all subpoenaed bank records to the deposition, although he admitted that he 
could have.  During the investigation, relator learned that respondent had 
 
 
3 
administered at least four other personal injury cases through his personal 
checking account, thus failing to open and maintain a lawyer’s trust account. 
 
In mitigation, respondent presented testimony at the hearing about his 
relapse into alcoholism.  About the time of the filing of the complaint, respondent 
checked himself into an alcohol treatment facility and has since reestablished his 
connection with Alcoholics Anonymous.  At the time of the hearing, respondent 
met weekly and counseled patients at an alcohol treatment facility.  He has also 
reevaluated his career and has enrolled in a master’s program in education.  He 
plans to earn a teaching certificate and become a teacher. 
 
The panel found, as the parties had stipulated, that respondent violated DR 
1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6) (two violations), 6-101(A)(3), 9-102(A), and Gov.Bar 
R. V(4)(G).  The panel recommended that we suspend respondent from the 
practice of law for two years and stay eighteen months of the suspension, during 
which respondent shall cooperate with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program and 
work with a monitor.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions 
of law, and recommendation. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and John K. McManus, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Martin Griffith, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  We hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years 
and stay eighteen months of the suspension, with the stay conditioned on 
respondent’s cooperation with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program and on 
respondent’s working with a monitor, to be appointed by relator.  Failure to 
satisfy these conditions will result in the reinstatement of respondent’s stayed 
suspension.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
 
 
4 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
FOOTNOTE: 
 
1. 
The complaint and other documents refer to Gov.Bar R. V(G), 
when clearly what is meant is Gov.Bar R. (4)(G).