Case Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Davis

Citation: 2012-Ohio-4546

Docket Number: 2012-0645

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-10-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Davis, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4546.] 
 
 
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-4546 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. DAVIS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Davis,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4546.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Dishonesty, 
fraud, 
or 
misrepresentation—Conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice—Misuse of trust account—
Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation—Disbarment. 
(No. 2012-0645—Submitted June 6, 2012—Decided October 4, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-094. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Dwight E. Davis of Pepper Pike, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0029972, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1977.  In 
January 2009, we suspended Davis’s law license for failure to comply with 
continuing-legal-education (“CLE”) requirements.  In March 2009, we suspended 
Davis’s license indefinitely for violating numerous provisions of the Code of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct.  Cleveland 
Bar Assn. v. Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 337, 2009-Ohio-764, 904 N.E.2d 517.  Then, 
as now, Davis failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process.  We also suspended 
his license for his failure to register for the 2009/2011 biennium with the Office of 
Attorney Services of the Supreme Court.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension 
of Davis, 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 N.E.2d 1256.  His license 
remains suspended. 
{¶ 2} On October 10, 2011, relator, the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar 
Association, filed a two-count complaint with the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline. The complaint charged Davis with professional 
misconduct based on his opening of a client trust account during his license 
suspension and depositing significant sums in it, even though he is prohibited 
from serving clients.  Relator further alleged that Davis paid personal expenses 
out of the account and overdrew it twice.  Relator asserted that this conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (requiring a lawyer to disclose information sought in 
a disciplinary matter), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial 
to the administration of justice), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting conduct that adversely 
reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  Relator also charged Davis with 
violating Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring the lawyer’s cooperation in a disciplinary 
investigation). 
{¶ 3} In investigating the complaint, counsel for relator made at least 
four attempts to contact Davis and discuss the allegations.  Davis did not reply to 
any of these attempts, even though he accepted relator’s hand-delivered letter 
directing that he close his client trust account and contact relator. 
{¶ 4} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline served 
Davis with the complaint, but he has never answered.  The clerk of the Supreme 
Court of Ohio accepted service on respondent’s behalf on November 18, 2011, in 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Davis again failed to respond, and on 
February 9, 2012, relator filed a motion for default, in accordance with Gov.Bar 
R. V(6)(F), supported by affidavits of relator’s counsel, records of Davis’s client 
trust account, and other materials. 
{¶ 5} A master commissioner appointed by the board considered the 
materials accompanying the default motion, made findings of fact and 
conclusions of law, and recommends that Davis be disbarred.  The board adopted 
the master commissioner’s report and recommendation, and we agree that the 
evidence supports disbarment. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 6} Three weeks after we suspended Davis’s law license in 2009, he 
opened a client trust account and deposited $11,190.46.  Six days later, he 
overdrew the account, but the bank did not notify disciplinary counsel.  The bank 
notified disciplinary counsel after a second overdraft on October 28, 2010.  
Suspecting that Davis was practicing law, disciplinary counsel asked relator to 
investigate.  Relator began by attempting to contact Davis and by subpoenaing 
Davis’s bank’s records.  The records show continual use of the account to pay 
personal expenses, including a golf-club fee and dog grooming.  Checks for 
thousands of dollars were written to an R. Elaine Davis.  By reviewing court 
records, relator discovered more than $22,000 in judgment liens against Davis.  
The master commissioner found that this conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), 
8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) as well as Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we 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.  In making a final determination, we consider a number of 
factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the sanctions 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 
2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  Because each disciplinary case is unique, 
we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take all relevant 
factors into account in determining what sanction to impose.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B). 
{¶ 8} The board found no mitigating factors but found five of the nine 
aggravating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1): prior disciplinary 
offenses, a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, 
and lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). 
{¶ 9} In recommending disbarment, the board first notes, “One of the 
purposes of the disciplinary rules that prohibit commingling of lawyer and client 
funds is to protect the client funds from the claims of creditors of the attorney. 
* * * In this case, when Respondent put his personal funds into an account 
entitled ‘escrow account,’ he improperly represented to his creditors that those 
funds were being held for a third party.”  See also Disciplinary Counsel v. Mazer, 
76 Ohio St.3d 481, 668 N.E.2d 478 (1996).  By establishing the escrow account, 
Davis engaged in the charged misconduct whether he was practicing law under 
suspension, deceitfully shielding his own funds from creditors, or both.  Davis 
refused to cooperate in relator’s investigation, and the documentary evidence 
showing misconduct is unrefuted. 
{¶ 10} The board further noted that the presumptive penalty for practicing 
law with a suspended license is disbarment.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Koury, 77 
Ohio St.3d 433, 674 N.E.2d 1371 (1977).  We agree that the facts and law support 
Davis’s disbarment.  Davis is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of 
law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to Davis. 
Judgment accordingly. 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., Colin R. Jennings, and Kathleen M. 
Portman, for relator. 
______________________