Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Trainor

Citation: 2003-Ohio-3634

Docket Number: 20030420

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-07-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Trainor, 99 Ohio St.3d 318, 2003-Ohio-3634.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. TRAINOR. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Trainor, 99 Ohio St.3d 318, 2003-Ohio-3634.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with sanction stayed on 
conditions — Failing to preserve identity of client funds — Failing to 
maintain complete records of and appropriately account for client funds. 
(No. 2003-0420 — Submitted May 14, 2003 — Decided July 23, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-69. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Robert N. Trainor of Covington, Kentucky, Attorney 
Registration No. 0012089, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978.  
On August 12, 2002, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging respondent with professional misconduct, including violations of DR 9-
102(A) (failing to preserve the identity of client funds) and (B) (failing to 
maintain complete records of and appropriately account for client funds).  A panel 
appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
considered the cause on stipulations and without a hearing, pursuant to agreement 
by the parties.1  See Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure 
on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline. 
{¶2} 
According to the stipulations, respondent agreed in 1996 to 
represent a client in personal-injury claims stemming from four automobile 
                                                 
1. 
The panel and board referred to a teleconference in which the parties apparently agreed 
that their untimely consent-to-discipline agreement be considered as stipulations and a waiver of 
hearing.  A written waiver of hearing is also mentioned, but does not appear in the record.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
accidents.  The cases were consolidated into one proceeding, and after discovery, 
respondent negotiated a settlement of all the claims for a total of $50,000.  
Respondent believes that his client signed a written contingent-fee contract, on a 
form he typically uses for personal-injury actions, as required by R.C. 
4705.15(B).  However, he could not find the client’s executed agreement, and she 
denied having signed such an agreement. 
{¶3} 
Respondent deposited the settlement proceeds, which he received 
in installments of $25,000, $17,500, and $7,500, into a client trust account.  He 
provided his client with an accurate accounting of receipts and disbursements for 
the first $25,000, but as he received the remaining amounts and paid additional 
litigation and medical expenses, he did not similarly account for the rest of the 
funds before his client disputed various payments.  Respondent attempted to 
remedy this oversight and reconcile his records, but in the process, he realized 
that he had actually overpaid his client.  An investigator assigned by Disciplinary 
Counsel reconstructed respondent’s trust account records and confirmed that he 
had paid to the client, or on the client’s account, $12,737 in excess of the proceeds 
to which she was entitled. 
{¶4} 
The panel found that respondent had failed to properly account for 
and preserve the identity of his client’s funds in violation of DR 9-102(A) and 
(B).  After noting that respondent had no prior history of professional misconduct, 
the panel recommended a sanction consistent with that proposed by the parties — 
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for nine months, with this 
sanction to be stayed on the conditions that he (1) provide to Disciplinary 
Counsel’s investigator an accounting, prepared by a certified public accountant, of 
all funds held in his IOLTA account and (2) provide periodic additional 
accountings as required by the investigator, with the investigator to preserve client 
confidentiality. 
January Term, 2003 
3 
{¶5} 
The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct, but 
considered a nine-month suspension too severe.  The board recommended that 
respondent be suspended for six months, with this sanction to be stayed on the 
conditions recommended by the panel. 
{¶6} 
We agree that respondent violated DR 9-102(A) and (B) and that a 
stayed six-month suspension is appropriate.  In addition to the fact that respondent 
had no prior history of discipline, we consider respondent’s cooperation in 
relator’s investigation to have significant mitigating effect.  Accordingly, 
respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of 
six months, but this sanction is stayed on the conditions that he (1) provide to 
Disciplinary Counsel’s investigator an accounting, prepared by a certified public 
accountant, of all funds held in his IOLTA account and (2) provide periodic 
additional accountings as required by the investigator, with the investigator to 
preserve client confidentiality.  If respondent violates any of these conditions, the 
stay will be lifted, and he shall serve the full term of the suspension. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and 
O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
James J. Condit and Kevin P. Roberts, for relator. 
 
Dinsmore & Shohl, L.L.P., and Mark A. Vander Laan, for respondent. 
__________________