Case Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Rogers

Citation: 1999-Ohio-338

Docket Number: 19982660

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-06-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Rogers, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 1999-Ohio-338.] 
 
 
 
 
 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROGERS. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Rogers (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with entire suspension 
stayed — Commingling own funds with clients’ funds. 
(No. 98-2660 — Submitted March 30, 1999 — Decided June 16, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-43. 
 
From May 9, 1995 through July 26, 1996, respondent, Richard H. Rogers of 
Dayton, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0017858, maintained a law office trust 
account in which he deposited personal funds for the purpose of accumulating 
money for his taxes.  On June 3, 1998, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed an 
amended complaint, which included a charge that respondent’s conduct violated 
DR 9-102(A)(2) (client funds shall be deposited by a lawyer in a bank account in 
which no funds belonging to the lawyer are deposited). 
 
After respondent answered, the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“board”).  On the basis of its 
hearings and the stipulations of the parties, the panel found that from May 1995 
through July 1996, respondent deposited his own funds in his client trust account 
and that he made withdrawals from that account for taxes and other personal 
expenses.  The panel further found that, although respondent had other business 
accounts, he took this action because he was engaged in a divorce proceeding and 
wished to deposit money he intended to use for taxes in a fund that his second wife 
could not attach.  The panel also found that when respondent commingled his 
personal and client funds, he maintained a positive balance in the account at all 
times.  The  panel concluded that even though his clients’ funds were never at risk, 
respondent violated DR 9-102(A).  The panel recommended that respondent be 
 
 
2
suspended from the practice of law for one year and that the entire year of 
suspension be stayed.  The board adopted the findings, conclusion, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Diane L. Gentile, for relator. 
 
James T. Ambrose, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  The evidence is conclusive that respondent commingled his 
funds with those of his clients in violation of DR 9-102(A).  In a case of 
commingling that involved a loss to the client, we imposed an actual suspension.  
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Brooks (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 524, 664 N.E.2d 900.  In 
Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Commt. v. Miles (1996), 76 Ohio 
St.3d 574, 669 N.E.2d 831, where, in addition to commingling, the attorney failed 
to keep proper accounting records and return client funds when requested, we 
suspended him from the practice of law for one year.  In a case where the lawyer 
deposited personal funds in his client trust account to avoid Internal Revenue 
Service collection procedures, we imposed a six-month suspension that was 
entirely stayed. Disciplinary Counsel v. Mazer (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 481, 668 
N.E.2d 478.  Under the circumstances of this case, we adopt the recommendation 
of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one 
year, with the entire year stayed.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissents and would suspend respondent for one year, with six 
months stayed.