Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Tinch

Citation: 2020-Ohio-2991

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-05-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Tinch, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-2991.] 
 
 
 
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. 2020-OHIO-2991 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. TINCH. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Tinch, Slip Opinion No.  
2020-Ohio-2991.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to deposit into a client trust account fees and expenses 
that have been paid in advance—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2018-1178—Submitted February 12, 2020—Decided May 20, 2020.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2018-033. 
______________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, William Matthew Tinch, of Middletown, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0088418, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
2011.  On September 20, 2017, we suspended his license on an interim basis upon 
receipt of substantial, credible evidence that Tinch had violated the Rules of 
Professional Conduct and posed a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
See Disciplinary Counsel v. Tinch, 151 Ohio St.3d 1213, 2017-Ohio-7683, 85 
N.E.3d 746; Gov.Bar R. V(19)(A) and (B). 
{¶ 2} In a 14-count complaint filed on June 6, 2018, relator, disciplinary 
counsel, charged Tinch with 71 rule violations arising from two instances of 
criminal conduct and his representation in 12 client matters.  Because Tinch did 
not answer the complaint or respond to our show-cause order, we imposed an 
interim default suspension under Gov.Bar R. V(14)(B)(1) on September 20, 2018.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Tinch, 153 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2018-Ohio-3776, 109 
N.E.3d 1253. 
{¶ 3} After Tinch responded to an order to show cause why his interim 
default suspension should not be converted into an indefinite suspension, we 
remanded the matter to the Board of Professional Conduct for consideration of 
mitigating evidence only.  155 Ohio St.3d 1459, 2019-Ohio-1759, 122 N.E.3d 
218. 
{¶ 4} Tinch is deemed to have committed the charged ethical violations by 
virtue of his default and failure to timely move this court for leave to answer the 
charges against him.  See Gov.Bar R. V(14)(A) and (C).  At a hearing before a 
three-member panel of the board, the parties submitted stipulated aggravating and 
mitigating factors and Tinch testified.  The board recommends that he be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, that he receive no credit for the 
time served under his interim suspensions, and that he be required to satisfy 
certain conditions before being reinstated to the practice of law.  No objections 
have been filed. 
{¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and 
indefinitely suspend Tinch from the practice of law with no credit for the time he 
has served under his interim suspensions and with conditions on his reinstatement. 
 
 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
Misconduct 
{¶ 6} From 2015 through 2017, Tinch engaged in a pattern of misconduct 
in his representation in 12 client matters.  He failed to deposit unearned legal fees 
into his client trust account, misappropriated funds that he had deposited into his 
client trust account, failed to notify one client of a diversion-program meeting that 
required the client’s attendance, and failed to diligently pursue his clients’ legal 
objectives.  He also falsely told one client’s father that he had taken action when 
in fact he had not, and he failed to abide by another client’s wishes by filing a 
divorce complaint instead of seeking a dissolution.  In addition, he missed client 
meetings and court appearances and failed to respond to his clients’ numerous 
efforts to communicate with him about the status of their legal matters, their 
requests for refunds, and the return of their files. 
{¶ 7} In May 2017, Tinch’s behavior became increasingly erratic.  During 
one client meeting, and in the presence of the client’s minor children, Tinch 
offered his client Xanax, a prescription drug used to treat anxiety and depression.  
A few weeks later, knowing that another client had been prescribed medication 
following a recent car accident, he asked the client to provide him with ten 
Percocet or Vicodin pills; the client responded that he was low on his medication.  
A day or two later, shortly before or after a hearing with the client, Tinch asked 
whether the client had filled his prescription; the client responded that he did not 
have any pills with him. 
{¶ 8} On May 8, Tinch called the Warren County Domestic Relations 
Court to request a continuance of a hearing scheduled for that afternoon, but the 
matter was not continued.  The magistrate adjourned the hearing shortly after it 
began and asked the judge to speak with Tinch.  After observing Tinch in 
chambers, the judge was so concerned about Tinch’s well-being that he would not 
permit him to leave the courthouse until he secured a ride home or submitted to a 
urine test.  Sheriff’s deputies escorted Tinch to the probation office, where he was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
“out-of-control, yelling obscenities, and creating a scene.”  When a deputy 
attempted to obtain a urine sample from Tinch, Tinch slapped the empty specimen 
cup from the deputy’s hand.  Deputies then handcuffed him and escorted him 
back to the courtroom, still yelling obscenities.  After Tinch secured a ride home, 
he posted disparaging and derogatory comments about the court on his personal 
and law-firm Facebook pages. 
{¶ 9} In June 2017, Tinch was indicted on a fifth-degree felony count of 
forgery and two first-degree misdemeanor counts of petty theft for accepting a 
$10,500 personal-injury settlement check on behalf of his employer, Kirby, 
Thomas & Brandenburg, writing “Pay to the Order of William Matthew Tinch” 
on the back of the check, forging the firm’s endorsement, and misappropriating 
the firm’s $312.50 share of the fee.  In October 2017, he pleaded guilty to forgery 
and one count of petty theft; however, the court granted his motion for 
intervention in lieu of conviction and held the charges in abeyance pending his 
completion of a substance-abuse treatment program.  After he successfully 
completed the program, the court terminated his community control on October 
15, 2018. 
{¶ 10} Finally, in July 2017, Tinch was charged with second-degree 
felony burglary after he broke into his mother-in-law’s home and left her a 
message on her computer.  In September 2017, he pleaded guilty to a first-degree 
misdemeanor count of attempted trespass, and he was sentenced to 180 days in 
jail, with 169 days suspended and 11 days of jail-time credit.  The court also 
imposed $350 in fines and ordered Tinch to participate in the court’s intensive 
drug program for five years. 
{¶ 11} Tinch is deemed to have committed the following ethical 
infractions: 
 
11 violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with 
reasonable diligence in representing a client), 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
 
ten violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep a 
client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), 
 
one violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold the 
property of clients or third persons that is in the lawyer’s possession in 
connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own 
property), 
 
12 violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit into a 
client trust account fees and expenses that have been paid in advance), 
 
two violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer withdrawing 
from representation to take steps reasonably practicable to protect a 
client’s interest), 
 
11 violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly 
refund any unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment), 
 
one violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or 
trustworthiness), 
 
ten violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging 
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 
 
nine violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), 
and  
 
four violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging 
in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 13} As aggravating factors, the parties stipulated that Tinch had acted 
with a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed 
multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, and harmed 
multiple vulnerable clients.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2) through (5) and (8).  The 
board noted that Tinch’s failure to cooperate had continued for two years and had 
extended beyond the date of his disciplinary hearing in that he was late in 
complying with the panel’s order to file supplemental materials. 
{¶ 14} At his disciplinary hearing, Tinch testified that he accepted full 
responsibility for his wrongdoing, but the board found that his testimony was 
replete with excuses and justifications for his misconduct.  He emphasized his 
firm’s poor management, lack of support, and overhead requirements.  He also 
claimed that the firm’s failure to inform his clients that he had entered inpatient 
substance-abuse treatment contributed to their grievances—yet he admitted that 
his substance abuse started before he joined the firm and that it (along with his 
client-related misconduct) continued after he left.  Tinch lamented that Ohio’s 
domestic-relations laws and his lack of connections or a mentor in the profession 
adversely affected his prospects for success.  He also attributed his chemical 
dependency to being “heavily overprescribed” narcotics for arthritis and back 
pain.  And while Tinch spoke about the effect his conduct had had on his family, 
he expressed no remorse for the harm his misconduct had caused to many clients.  
Therefore, the board attributed aggravating effect to Tinch’s failure to 
demonstrate true ownership of and appropriate remorse for his misconduct. 
{¶ 15} As for mitigation, the parties stipulated that Tinch has no prior 
discipline and had made full and free disclosure to the board, presented positive 
character evidence, had other penalties or sanctions imposed for his criminal 
conduct, and established the existence of a chemical-dependency disorder that 
January Term, 2020 
 
7
contributed to his conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) and (4) through (7).  At 
the time of his disciplinary hearing, Tinch had completed a 28-day inpatient, 
residential drug-treatment program and a 52-week aftercare program.  He 
continued to participate in a substance-abuse recovery program through his 
church, and on September 24, 2019, he entered into a three-year contract with the 
Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”).  He has been sober since his arrest 
in July 2017.  In September 2019, John Widmer, a licensed chemical-dependency 
counselor, opined that Tinch could return to the ethical and competent practice of 
law provided that he comply with all OLAP recommendations. 
{¶ 16} The board also found that Tinch has paid $14,153.50 in restitution 
to the affected clients and his former firm (which had refunded some retainers on 
his behalf and performed some of the work for which Tinch was paid) and has 
agreed to make restitution of $1,000 to Melinda Vandegrift. 
{¶ 17} The board acknowledged that disbarment is the presumptive 
sanction for the misappropriation of client funds.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Longino, 128 Ohio St.3d 426, 2011-Ohio-1524, 945 N.E.2d 1040, ¶ 39; 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 102 Ohio St.3d 264, 2004-Ohio-2683, 809 
N.E.2d 1113, ¶ 16 (“Taking retainers and failing to carry out contracts of 
employment is tantamount to theft of the fee from the client.  The presumptive 
disciplinary measure for such acts of misappropriation is disbarment”).  But 
recognizing that we often temper this presumptive sanction when an attorney’s 
misconduct was motivated by addiction and the attorney has demonstrated a 
commitment to recovery, the board recommends that we indefinitely suspend 
Tinch from the practice of law with no credit for the time he has served under his 
interim remedial and interim default suspensions.  In support of that 
recommendation, the board primarily relies on three cases in which we imposed 
indefinite suspensions, with no credit for time served, on attorneys who had 
engaged in similar misconduct while abusing drugs and/or alcohol.  See 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
Disciplinary Counsel v. Deters, 155 Ohio St.3d 478, 2018-Ohio-5025, 122 N.E.3d 
159; Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Lemieux, 139 Ohio St.3d 320, 2014-Ohio-
2127, 11 N.E.3d 1557; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Lawson, 119 Ohio St.3d 58, 2008-
Ohio-3340, 891 N.E.2d 749. 
{¶ 18} In addition to the indefinite suspension, the board recommends that 
Tinch be ordered to submit proof that he has made restitution of $1,000 to 
Vandegrift and that his future reinstatement be conditioned on the submission of 
evidence that he has maintained his sobriety, has complied with his OLAP 
contract, and is capable of resuming the competent, ethical, and professional 
practice of law. 
{¶ 19} Having independently reviewed the record and our precedent, we 
agree that an indefinite suspension, with no credit for time served and with the 
additional conditions recommended by the board, is the appropriate sanction in 
this case. 
{¶ 20} Accordingly, William Matthew Tinch is indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio with no credit for the time he has served under 
the interim remedial suspension imposed on September 20, 2017, or the interim 
default suspension imposed on September 20, 2018.  Within 60 days, he shall 
submit proof to relator that he has made restitution of $1,000 to Melinda 
Vandegrift.  In addition to the conditions for reinstatement set forth in Gov.Bar R. 
V(25), Tinch shall be required to submit proof (1) that he has maintained his 
sobriety throughout his suspension, (2) that he has complied with the terms of his 
OLAP contract, and (3) that a qualified healthcare professional or chemical-
dependency counselor has opined that he is capable of returning to the competent, 
ethical, and professional practice of law.  Costs are taxed to Tinch. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2020 
 
9
_________________ 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
William Matthew Tinch, pro se. 
_________________