Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Watson

Citation: 2012-Ohio-3830

Docket Number: 2011-2056

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-08-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Watson, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3830.] 
 
 
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-3830 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. WATSON. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, 
it may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Watson,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3830.] 
Attorney misconduct, including failing to promptly deliver funds that client is 
entitled to receive—One-year suspension, stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2011-2056—Submitted January 18, 2012—Decided August 28, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-048. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David Charles Watson Jr. of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0025989, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1985.  
On May 2, 2011, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a three-count 
complaint charging Watson with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct in his representation of three separate clients. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline conducted a hearing at which it received numerous exhibits and heard 
testimony from relator’s investigator, Watson, Watson’s partner, Watson’s 
psychiatrist, one of the affected clients, the judge who presided over one of the 
matters in which Watson allegedly engaged in misconduct, and two attorneys who 
represented the opposing parties in two of the investigated matters.  During that 
hearing, relator withdrew some of the allegations in Count One of the complaint.  
Following the hearing, the panel issued a report finding that relator had proved by 
clear and convincing evidence that Watson had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(d) 
(requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that the client is 
entitled to receive) with respect to Count One, and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) 
(requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients in an interest-bearing client trust 
account, separate from the lawyer’s own property) with respect to Counts Two 
and Three.  But the panel also found that relator had not proved the remaining 
allegations of misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. 
{¶ 3} Based upon the proven violations, the panel recommended that 
Watson be suspended from the practice of law for six months, but that the entire 
suspension be stayed on conditions.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of 
fact and misconduct, as well as the recommended sanction.  We adopt the board’s 
findings of fact and misconduct, but for the reasons that follow, we find that a 
one-year suspension, all stayed on the recommended conditions, is the appropriate 
sanction for Watson’s misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} The evidence adduced at the panel hearing demonstrates that with 
respect to Count One, Watson received $250 from Teri Fravel (n.k.a. Pizzurro) 
and deposited it into his operating account.  Relator alleged that the money was 
intended as a fee to refile a motion to reallocate parental rights and 
responsibilities that had been dismissed by the court.  Watson testified that 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
Pizzurro had given him the money to “decide which way to handle the matter.”  
Watson conceded that Pizzurro was entitled to a refund of the $250 and that he 
had failed to return the money, but claimed that Pizzurro owed him $3,000 and 
that her subsequent bankruptcy filing rendered repayment impractical.  Based 
upon these facts, the panel and board found that Watson had violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(d). 
{¶ 5} With regard to Count Two, the panel and board found that while 
representing Jane Searcy in a divorce case, Watson was entrusted with a $1,800 
government check that was to be divided equally between Searcy and her husband 
during their pending divorce.  Because Watson conceded that he failed to place 
these funds into his client trust account, the panel and board found that he had 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a). 
{¶ 6} And with respect to Count Three, the panel and board found that 
Watson admitted that he had commingled personal and client funds in violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) by depositing a $20,000 gift from his mother into his client 
trust account.  He also issued two checks from his client trust account to pay his 
personal rent.  The panel and the board found, however, that the violation was 
relatively minor, did not result in harm to any clients, and did not involve deceit 
or other malfeasance.  We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
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. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} The sole aggravating factor present in this case is that Watson 
committed multiple offenses.  See BCGD Proc.Reg 10(B)(1)(d).  Mitigating 
factors found by the board include the absence of a prior disciplinary record in his 
more than 25 years of practice, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, 
Watson’s timely, good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of his misconduct, 
and his cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), and (d).  Judge Dana Preisse, of the Franklin 
County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations and Juvenile Branch, 
testified to his good character, stating, “From what I observed in my courtroom, I 
think he has a fine character and reputation.”  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e). 
{¶ 9} Watson’s psychiatrist, Dr. James Girvin, testified that Watson had 
symptoms of depression in January 2008.  But although Watson’s symptoms 
would dissipate with prescribed medication, he did not always take the medication 
as prescribed. 
{¶ 10} In 2009, during a period in which Watson had stopped taking his 
medication, his law clerk, Titus Donnell, graduated from law school, obtained his 
license to practice law in Ohio, and became a partner in the Watson Law Group.  
Donnell assumed responsibility for managing the business affairs of the practice, 
and he implemented changes to make the operation more organized and efficient. 
While the changes were successful, Donnell believed that Watson exhibited many 
of the symptoms of attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) and that 
his behavior continued to hinder the practice.  Therefore, he suggested that 
Watson discuss the issue with Dr. Girvin. 
{¶ 11} Watson raised Donnell’s concerns with Dr. Girvin, who diagnosed 
him with ADHD.  Dr. Girvin testified that he had prescribed Ritalin and that 
Watson’s symptoms improved with the medication.  He stated that ADHD could 
interfere with a person’s professional practice because it interferes with the 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
person’s ability to prioritize tasks, keep appointments, keep track of paperwork, 
and keep track of client-billing information. 
{¶ 12} Although he spoke generally about the effects of ADHD and 
Watson’s general lack of organizational skills and ability to focus, Dr. Girvin did 
not express any opinion as to whether Watson’s undiagnosed ADHD contributed 
to the misconduct found by the panel, and he declined to testify that ADHD was a 
mental disability within the meaning of BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).  Therefore, 
the panel and board concluded that Watson had not established all of the elements 
necessary for his ADHD to be considered as a mitigating factor.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)(i) through (iv). 
{¶ 13} The board recommends a six-month fully stayed suspension for 
Watson’s conduct, citing several cases in which we imposed such suspensions for 
minor trust-account violations.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Vivyan, 125 
Ohio St.3d 12, 2010-Ohio-650, 925 N.E.2d 947 (imposing a six-month stayed 
suspension on an attorney who withdrew approximately $1,500 in unearned 
settlement proceeds from his client trust account); Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Newcomer, 119 Ohio St.3d 351, 2008-Ohio-4492, 894 N.E.2d 50 (imposing a six-
month stayed suspension on an attorney who used his client trust accounts for his 
personal banking needs, commingled personal and client funds in that account,  
and overdrew that account on two separate occasions).  But in light of the 
testimony from Donnell and Dr. Girvin, the board recommends that the following 
conditions be placed upon the stay: “that [Watson] commit no further misconduct; 
that, within 60 days of the effective date of the Court’s order, he submit to an 
evaluation by a qualified health care professional concerning his ADHD, 
including a diagnosis and treatment regimen; that he enter into a contract with the 
Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (OLAP) that shall be of such duration as 
OLAP determines to be necessary to ensure that [Watson’s] ADHD is no longer 
hindering his ability to engage in the ethical practice of law; that he comply with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
OLAP’s treatment recommendations as set forth in the contract; and that he be on 
probation until the latter of the expiration of the OLAP contract or twelve months 
from the effective date of the Court’s disciplinary order.” 
{¶ 14} While we agree that the offenses in Vivyan and Newcomer are 
comparable to those committed by Watson, neither of those cases involved an 
ongoing mental-health condition that could affect the attorney’s present ability to 
competently, ethically, and professionally practice law.  Here, in contrast, Watson 
has been diagnosed with ADHD and has reported that the treatment prescribed by 
Dr. Girvin has improved his organizational skills and ability to focus.  While Dr. 
Girvin believes that Watson’s report is sincere and that he is compliant with his 
treatment regimen, he also testified that “[s]ometimes the symptoms of the illness 
get in the way of the regularity and adherence to taking the medicine, getting 
refills, all that stuff.”  Because the very symptoms of his condition may impede 
his ability to comply with treatment, and because the record contains some 
evidence that Watson drifted away from the treatment of his depression in the 
past, we believe that a one-year fully stayed suspension will better protect the 
public from future misconduct. 
{¶ 15} Accordingly, we suspend David Charles Watson Jr. from the 
practice of law for one year, but fully stay that suspension on the conditions that 
he (1) commit no further misconduct, (2) submit within 60 days of this opinion 
and order to a mental-health evaluation conducted by the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program (“OLAP”) or a qualified mental-health-care professional 
selected by OLAP, (3) enter into an OLAP contract, the duration of which shall be 
determined by OLAP, (4) comply with all the treatment recommendations as set 
forth in the OLAP contract, and (5) serve a period of monitored probation in 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9) until the expiration of the OLAP contract or 12 
months from the effective date of this court’s order, whichever is later.  If Watson 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay shall be lifted, and he shall 
serve the full one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Watson. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar 
Counsel; and Bradley N. Frick, for relator. 
Steven G. Janik, Audrey K. Bentz, and Colin P. Sammon, for respondent. 
______________________