Case Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Miller

Citation: 2012-Ohio-1880

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-05-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Miller, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1880.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-1880 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. MILLER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Miller, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1880.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—One-year license suspension, with six months 
stayed on condition of no further misconduct, followed by monitored 
probation. 
(No. 2011-1750—Submitted December 7, 2011—Decided May 2, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-006. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Harvey C. Miller, of Sylvania, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0071490, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1999.  In 
February 2011, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint against Miller, 
charging him with violating Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
knowingly making a false statement to a tribunal), 1.15(a) (requiring that client 
property be held separate from the lawyer’s own property), 8.4(c) (prohibiting 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(h) 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
(prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice 
law). 
{¶ 2} The parties entered into stipulations of fact that Miller made false 
statements to a tribunal, diverted funds from a client trust account of the law firm 
to pay the expenses of one of Miller’s personal clients, and engaged in conduct 
that adversely reflects on Miller’s fitness to practice law.  The stipulations 
expressed the parties’ agreement that Miller had thereby violated the Rules of 
Professional Conduct as charged except Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c); the relator dismissed 
that count at the hearing of the panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline. 
{¶ 3} The panel found that Miller had committed the stipulated 
violations and recommended imposing the agreed-upon sanction of a one-year 
license suspension conditionally stayed for six months.  The panel further 
recommended that the six-month actual suspension be followed by a year of 
monitoring by an attorney of relator’s choosing.  The board concurred in these 
findings and conclusions, and we accept the board’s recommendation. 
Factual Background 
{¶ 4} Miller joined the law firm Bugbee & Conkle, L.L.P. (“Bugbee”) in 
Toledo, Ohio, in November 2000 and was a full-time, hourly employee at the firm 
until 2007, when he became a nonequity partner.  Miller continued as partner at 
the firm until his termination on December 21, 2009. 
{¶ 5} Miller is a debtor subject to a Wisconsin judgment enforced 
against him through Miller v. Miller, Lucas C.P. No. LN-2006-03795.  On June 4, 
2007, a garnishment notice was delivered to the law firm concerning Miller’s 
debt, naming the law firm as garnishee.  As a Bugbee partner, Miller responded to 
the court in the “answer of garnishee” that Bugbee did not possess, hold, or 
otherwise own any property of Miller’s that might be subject to garnishment.  
Additionally, Miller marked the answer “NO” on behalf of the firm with respect 
to whether Miller was employed with the firm. 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
{¶ 6} A second garnishment notice arrived at the law firm two months 
later.  That notice asked whether Bugbee had “money, property, or credits other 
than personal earnings of the Judgment Debtor under the Garnishee’s control and 
in the Garnishee’s Possession.”  Miller marked “No” and signed the response as a 
partner of Bugbee.  The notice was filed with the court on September 6, 2007.  
Miller has stipulated that the answers on both forms were false.  Bugbee 
terminated Miller’s employment on December 21, 2009. 
{¶ 7} On June 17, 2009, Miller and his wife had filed a Chapter 13 
bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of 
Ohio, case No. 09-34073.  Miller had been ordered to pay to certain creditors 
about ten percent of what he owed them.  Two days after his dismissal from 
Bugbee, Miller filed a motion in the bankruptcy case to suspend his payments 
under this wage-earner plan because Miller had been “laid off” from Bugbee and 
had no income.  But while Miller’s formal employment with Bugbee had ended, 
Miller received from Bugbee his draw of $6,000 on December 31, 2009.  
Additionally, a separation agreement between Bugbee and Miller authorized three 
payments to Miller totaling $25,000, beginning in January 2010.  Miller stipulated 
that he was aware when he filed the motion in the bankruptcy court that he would 
receive three payments under the separation agreement if he satisfied certain 
obligations.  In addition, Miller liquidated the $22,392 in his Bugbee retirement 
plan on January 10, 2010. 
{¶ 8} On February 1, 2010, Miller received the first of his three 
separation-agreement payments, for $8,333.  At the hearing on Miller’s motion to 
suspend his payments on January 19, 2010, Miller did not inform the bankruptcy 
trustee or court of any funds he had received or would be entitled to after 
December 21.  On January 20, 2010, the court, without knowing of these 
payments, granted Miller’s motion to suspend his Chapter 13 payments because 
Miller had been “laid off.”  Miller stipulated that his failure to disclose the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
payments in connection with his motion in the bankruptcy court constituted a 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1). 
{¶ 9} During 2008, Miller represented pro bono a client who was not a 
client of the Bugbee firm (the “Miller client”).  In August 2008, Miller directed 
Bugbee’s bookkeeper to access the escrow account of another client, who was a 
client of the firm (the “Bugbee client”), to pay a filing fee of the Miller client.  
When the check was discovered, the firm advised the Bugbee client that its 
account had been erroneously accessed to pay a filing fee, and the firm repaid the 
Bugbee client $300.  Miller has stipulated that his conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.15(a) and 8.4(h). 
{¶ 10} In reviewing the stipulations and the panel’s recommendation, we 
agree with the board that Miller has violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 3.3(a)(1), and 
8.4(h). 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.   
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
{¶ 12} After finding that Miller had committed the stipulated violations, 
the board weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors.  In mitigation, the 
board took into account that Miller had not previously been disciplined, that he 
has acknowledged his wrongdoing and has expressed remorse about it, and that he 
has been active in his church.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), (d), and (e).  As 
aggravating factors, the board concluded that the unauthorized use of client funds 
indicated a character flaw and that Miller had acted with a dishonest motive in the 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
pro bono case and in misleading the bankruptcy court.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(b).  Lastly, the board concluded that the violations constituted a pattern 
of misconduct and multiple offenses.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d). 
{¶ 13} Case law supports an actual license suspension when extensive 
misconduct involves dishonesty that adversely reflects on the attorney’s fitness to 
practice law.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Greene, 74 Ohio St.3d 13, 655 N.E.2d 
1299 (1995), syllabus; see also Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Lukey, 110 Ohio St.3d 
128, 2006-Ohio-3822, 851 N.E.2d 493, ¶ 23; accord Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Olivito, 110 Ohio St.3d 64, 2006-Ohio-3564, 850 N.E.2d 702, ¶ 20, citing 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Shaffer, 98 Ohio St.3d 342, 2003-Ohio-1008, 785 N.E.2d 
429, ¶ 13-14. 
{¶ 14} Likewise, mishandling of trust-account funds has resulted in 
sanctions ranging from a stayed six-month suspension, Disciplinary Counsel v. 
LaRue, 122 Ohio St.3d 445, 2009-Ohio-3604, 912 N.E.2d 101, to an indefinite 
suspension when combined with lack of candor in the disciplinary process itself, 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 381, 2006-Ohio-1194, 843 N.E.2d 
1198.  In light of Miller’s admitted dishonesty and the seriousness of these 
combined violations, we concur that precedent supports the board’s 
recommendation. 
{¶ 15} Miller, as a lawyer and a party, lied to courts in both the 
garnishment inquiry and at the bankruptcy hearing.  In Greene, we imposed a 
partially stayed suspension upon the license of a lawyer who lied to a judge about 
a fact in a case and whose conduct adversely reflected on his fitness to practice 
law.  74 Ohio St.3d at 14, 655 N.E.2d 1299.  We held, “When a lawyer 
intentionally misrepresents a crucial fact to a court in order to effect a desired 
result to benefit a party, the lawyer will be suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for an appropriate period of time.”  Id. at syllabus.  In Olivito, we imposed a 
two-year suspension with one year stayed, where the respondent had, among other 
things, made misrepresentations to the bankruptcy court.  110 Ohio St.3d 64, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
2006-Ohio-3564, 850 N.E.2d 702, ¶ 9, 20, 22.  And in Lukey, we echoed our 
holding in Greene by emphasizing, “An actual suspension of a lawyer’s license to 
practice is the appropriate sanction when the lawyer has intentionally 
misrepresented a crucial fact to a court in order to benefit a party.”  110 Ohio 
St.3d 128, 2006-Ohio-3822, 851 N.E.2d 493, ¶ 23. 
{¶ 16} We therefore find that Miller has violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 
3.3(a)(1), and 8.4(h), and we concur that a one-year suspension of Miller’s 
license, with six months of the suspension stayed on conditions, is appropriate.  
Miller is suspended from the practice of law for one year, with six months of the 
suspension stayed upon the condition that he engage in no further misconduct.  If 
Miller violates the terms of this stay, the stay will be lifted, and Miller will serve 
the entire 12-month suspension.  When Miller returns to the practice of law, a 
one-year period of probation shall begin pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9), during 
which Miller shall work with a monitoring attorney.  Miller shall meet with the 
monitoring attorney at least once a month, and the monitoring attorney shall 
submit reports to the relator on a quarterly basis. 
{¶ 17} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Michael A. Bonfiglio, Toledo Bar Counsel, and Amy E. Stoner, for 
relator. 
 
Boss & Vitrou Co., L.P.A., and Charles M. Boss, for respondent. 
______________________