Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Troller

Citation: 2014-Ohio-60

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-01-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Troller, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-60.] 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-60 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. TROLLER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Troller,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-60.] 
Attorney misconduct, including continuing to practice law while license under 
suspension—Two-year suspension, with six months stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2013-0572—Submitted June 5, 2013—Decided January 14, 2014.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-057. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David Edward Troller of Mason, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0013296, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1984.  
On December 2, 2005, we suspended him for his failure to register for the 2005-
2007 biennium.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Troller, 107 Ohio 
St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671 (“Troller I”).  And on May 16, 
2006, we suspended him for his failure to meet the continuing-legal-education 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
(“CLE”) requirements of Gov.Bar R. X.  In re Continuing Legal Edn. Suspension 
of Troller, 109 Ohio St.3d 1464, 2006-Ohio-2403, 847 N.E.2d 443 (“Troller II”).  
These suspensions remain in effect. 
{¶ 2} In July 2012, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Troller with 
violations of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, 
the Rules of Professional Conduct,1 and the Rules for the Government of the Bar 
of Ohio for failing to comply with the duties of a suspended attorney, continuing 
to practice law while his license was under suspension, and engaging in conduct 
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.  A probable-cause panel of 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found that probable 
cause existed and certified the complaint to the full board on August 6, 2012. 
{¶ 3} The parties entered into joint stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors and submitted eight stipulated exhibits.  Based 
on the parties’ stipulations of fact and misconduct, Troller’s testimony, and 
additional evidence submitted at the hearing, the panel found that by continuing to 
perform his job duties as the chief legal officer for Clopay Corporation, Troller 
continued to practice law for six years after his license was suspended by this 
court.  The parties also jointly recommended that Troller be suspended from the 
practice of law for two years, with six months stayed on conditions.  The panel 
adopted the stipulated sanction but added one additional condition.  The board 
adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction of the 
panel, and no objections have been filed to the board’s report.  We agree that 
Troller committed the charged misconduct and adopt the sanction recommended 
by the board. 
                                                 
1 Relator charged respondent with misconduct under the applicable rules for acts occurring before 
and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 
supersede the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Although both the 
former and current rules are cited for the same acts, the allegations comprise a single continuing 
ethical violation. 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Troller was hired by the Clopay Corporation as senior corporate 
counsel in 1999 and had no other clients during his employment.  From April 
2002 to April 2012, he served as the chief legal officer and secretary of the 
company and used the title “chief legal officer” on his stationery and business 
cards.  A January 16, 2012 document signed by Clopay’s board of directors 
designates Troller as vice president and secretary—deleting the board’s earlier 
reference to him as chief legal counsel—but Troller testified that he held the title 
of chief legal officer until April 2012. 
{¶ 5} Troller failed to register as an attorney for the 2005-2007 
biennium.  Consequently, we suspended his license to practice law on December 
2, 2005.  See Troller I.  The order of suspension prohibited him from giving legal 
advice or counsel, preparing legal instruments for others, or in any manner 
performing legal services for others.  Id.; Gov.Bar R. VI(6)(C).  On May 16, 
2006, we imposed a second suspension for his failure to comply with CLE 
requirements for the 2003-2004 reporting period and his failure to comply with a 
previously ordered monetary sanction for his noncompliance in the 2001-2002 
reporting period.  See Troller II; Gov.Bar R. X(5)(A)(4) and (6)(B).  To date, 
Troller has not been reinstated to the practice of law. 
{¶ 6} Although Troller never signed pleadings or appeared in court 
proceedings on behalf of Clopay, the parties have stipulated that after he was 
suspended, he held himself out as being authorized to practice law and actually 
engaged in the practice of law in at least three respects:  (1) working with outside 
counsel on pending litigation matters, (2) negotiating and drafting contracts on 
behalf of the company, and (3) advising human-resources personnel regarding the 
termination of employees.  During his cross-examination at the panel hearing, 
Troller was hesitant to admit that his work constituted the practice of law, but on 
further questioning, he admitted that he had been practicing law. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 7} Troller stipulated that during his suspension (and while he 
continued to hold himself out as chief legal counsel), he hired and managed 
outside legal counsel, talked to counsel about the progress of cases, discussed how 
to proceed, challenged outside counsel’s plans, and helped the company decide 
how to resolve cases.  He admitted that he and the company’s outside counsel 
discussed discovery proceedings, issues that arose with answers or complaints 
that were to be filed in court, depositions, and settlements. He also testified that 
he had managed the company’s legal-department employees.  In 2006 and 2007, 
Troller supervised another attorney who was a full-time employee of the 
corporation.  Together they managed the corporation’s contracts, human-
resources, and litigation issues.  And from 2009 to 2012, he worked on the 
company’s legal issues with a part-time attorney who served as outside counsel. 
{¶ 8} Troller also stipulated that his job duties included assisting with 
human-resources issues and testified that he had probably given legal advice 
regarding employee terminations and the risk that the company might be sued for 
wrongful discharge based on an employee’s age or health.  Significantly, Troller 
admitted that negotiating and drafting contracts constituted 25 percent of his work 
for Clopay. 
{¶ 9} The panel and board found that Troller had continued to practice 
law following the suspension of his license and that this conduct violated DR 1-
102(A)(6) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), DR 3-
101(B) and Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a 
jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that 
jurisdiction), and Gov.Bar R. VI(5)(C) (prohibiting an attorney who has been 
suspended from the practice of law for a registration violation from practicing law 
or holding himself out as authorized to practice law in Ohio).  We adopt these 
findings of fact and misconduct. 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant 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. 
{¶ 11} As aggravating factors, the parties have stipulated and the panel 
and board have found that Troller’s registration suspension is a prior disciplinary 
offense and that he engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple 
offenses.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (c), and (d).  Mitigating factors 
include his good-faith effort to rectify his conduct by ceasing his use of the title 
“chief legal officer” and avoiding giving any legal advice or engaging in acts that 
would constitute the practice of law in his work (once relator initiated its 
investigation) and his full cooperation in the disciplinary process.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d).  The parties and the panel and board also note that Troller 
is an active member of his church and community and has a long history of 
engaging in charitable endeavors including participating in post-hurricane rescue 
and recovery efforts in New Orleans and Haiti and serving as a volunteer 
firefighter.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e).  Although Troller testified that he 
had signed a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and 
that he has been receiving treatment for anxiety, he did not submit a status report 
from OLAP or his treating professionals and did not establish a diagnosed mental 
disability as a mitigating factor in accordance with BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). 
{¶ 12} The panel adopted the parties’ stipulated sanction of a two-year 
suspension with six months stayed on the conditions that (1) Troller extend his 
OLAP contract for two and a half years beyond the date of this court’s final order 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
in this matter and remain in compliance with its terms, (2) he satisfy his 
outstanding CLE obligation, and (3) in conjunction with any application for 
reinstatement, he submit a letter from OLAP or a qualified mental-health 
professional approved by OLAP stating that he is capable of returning to the 
competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.  The panel also 
recommended that Troller be required to pay the applicable attorney-registration 
fees for the 2005-2007 biennium and each subsequent biennium during which he 
practiced law without a license. 
{¶ 13} In support of its recommended sanction, the panel cited several 
cases in which we have diverged from the normal penalty of permanent 
disbarment for attorneys who have continued to practice law during a license 
suspension.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Koury, 77 Ohio St.3d 433, 436, 674 
N.E.2d 1371 (1997) (“The normal penalty for continuing to practice law while 
under suspension is disbarment”); Disciplinary Counsel v. Bancsi, 79 Ohio St.3d 
392, 683 N.E.2d 1072 (1997) (imposing a one-year suspension with six months 
stayed on an attorney who continued to practice law for five weeks during a CLE 
suspension); Disciplinary Counsel v. Blackwell, 79 Ohio St.3d 395, 683 N.E.2d 
1074 (1997) (imposing a two-year suspension with the second year stayed on an 
attorney who continued to practice law for 15 months while his license was 
suspended for failing to meet CLE requirements and failing to maintain a current 
certificate of registration); Disciplinary Counsel v. Seabrook, 133 Ohio St.3d 97, 
2012-Ohio-3933, 975 N.E.2d 1013 (imposing a two-year suspension with the 
second year stayed on conditions on an attorney who continued to practice law 
during a three-month license suspension and initially failed to cooperate in the 
resulting disciplinary investigation); and Disciplinary Counsel v. Carson, 93 Ohio 
St.3d 137, 753 N.E.2d 172 (2001) (imposing a two-year suspension with the 
second year stayed on an attorney who was suspended from the practice of law for 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
his failure to pay fines associated with a CLE deficiency and continued to practice 
law during his seven-year suspension). 
{¶ 14} The board adopted the panel’s recommended sanction in this case. 
{¶ 15} We are mindful that the primary purpose of the disciplinary 
process is not to punish the offender but to protect the public from lawyers who 
are unworthy of the trust and confidence essential to the attorney-client 
relationship.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Agopian, 112 Ohio St.3d 103, 2006-Ohio-
6510, 858 N.E.2d 368, ¶ 10.  Accord Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Neill, 103 Ohio 
St.3d 204, 2004-Ohio-4704, 815 N.E.2d 286, ¶ 53; Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Fumich, 116 Ohio St.3d 257, 2007-Ohio-6040, 878 N.E.2d 6, ¶ 17; and Ohio 
State Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 41 Ohio St.2d 97, 100, 322 N.E.2d 665 (1975). 
{¶ 16} Given the limited nature of Troller’s practice during his CLE and 
registration suspensions, his cooperation throughout the disciplinary process, his 
willingness to stipulate to the alleged misconduct, and the additional mitigating 
factors cited by the board, we find that Troller does not pose a great risk to the 
public going forward.  Therefore, we agree that a two-year suspension with six 
months stayed on conditions is the appropriate sanction for Troller’s misconduct. 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, David Edward Troller is suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for two years, with six months stayed on the conditions that he (1) 
extend his OLAP contract for two and a half years beyond the date of this court’s 
final order in this matter and remain in compliance with its terms, (2) within 30 
days of the date of this order, pay the applicable attorney-registration fees for the 
2005-2007 biennium and the three subsequent bienniums during which he 
practiced law without a license, and (3) engage in no further misconduct.  On 
applying for reinstatement to the practice of law, he must, in addition to 
demonstrating that he has satisfied the general requirements of Gov.Bar R. 
V(10)(A), submit a letter from OLAP or a qualified mental-health professional 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
approved by OLAP stating that he is capable of returning to the competent, 
ethical, and professional practice of law.  Costs are taxed to Troller. 
Judgment accordingly. 
PFEIFER, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL and FRENCH, JJ., dissent and would 
impose a two-year actual suspension from the practice of law. 
____________________ 
Robert R. Berger, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and Donald M. 
Scheetz, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P., Melissa Zujkowski, and Isaac Schulz, for 
respondent. 
________________________