Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Newcomer

Citation: 2008-Ohio-4492

Docket Number: 20080765

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-09-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Newcomer, 119 Ohio St.3d 351, 2008-Ohio-4492.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. NEWCOMER. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Newcomer,  
119 Ohio St.3d 351, 2008-Ohio-4492.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer's 
fitness to practice law — Failure to properly maintain a client trust 
account — Six-month stayed suspension. 
(No. 2008-0765 — Submitted April 23, 2008 — Decided September 11, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-092. 
_________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Ned Stevens Newcomer of Holland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0012978, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1968.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has recommended 
that we suspend respondent’s license to practice for six months, staying the 
suspension on condition, based on findings that he commingled his own funds 
with clients’ funds held in trust.  We agree that respondent violated the Code of 
Professional Responsibility as found by the board and that a six-month stayed 
suspension is appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, 
Disciplinary 
Counsel, 
charged 
respondent 
with 
professional misconduct, including violations of DR l-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects upon the lawyer’s fitness 
to practice law) and 9-102(A) (requiring a lawyer to maintain client funds, other 
than advances for costs and expenses, in a separate, identifiable bank account).  A 
panel of the board considered the case on the parties’ consent-to-discipline 
agreement, filed pursuant to Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Complaints and Procedure before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline.  The panel accepted the agreement, found the stipulated violations of 
DR 1-102(A)(6) and 9-102(A), and recommended the six-month stayed 
suspension proposed by the parties.  The board adopted the panel’s findings and 
recommendation. 
{¶ 3} The parties stipulated that respondent improperly maintained his 
client trust account by using it for his personal banking needs.  Prior to June 2006, 
respondent maintained a Fifth Third Bank account in which he placed funds 
entrusted to him by his clients.  That month, the bank notified respondent that he 
had overdrawn the account by $132.60 on one occasion and by $258.48 on 
another.  Admitting that he had started using the account for his personal finances, 
respondent explained that he had done so because the bank had earlier closed his 
personal bank account for reasons related to his poor financial condition. 
{¶ 4} By commingling his own and entrusted client funds, respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and 9-102(A).  For these disciplinary infractions, we 
have ordered a six-month suspension, stayed on conditions.  See, e.g., Cuyahoga 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nance, 119 Ohio St.3d 55, 2008-Ohio-3333, 891 N.E.2d 746; 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Peden, 118 Ohio St.3d 244, 2008-Ohio-2237, 887 N.E.2d 
1183.  We therefore impose the sanction recommended by the board. 
{¶ 5} We suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for six 
months; however, the suspension is stayed on the condition that respondent 
commit no further misconduct.  If respondent violates the condition of the stay, 
the stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire six-month suspension.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
January Term, 2008 
3 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol A. Costa, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Ned Stevens Newcomer, pro se. 
______________________