Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. McGowan

Citation: 2013-Ohio-1470

Docket Number: 2012-1692

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-04-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. McGowan, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1470.] 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-1470 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. MCGOWAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. McGowan,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1470.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Engaging in an illegal act that reflects adversely on the 
lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness, failing to act with reasonable 
diligence in representing a client, and failing to cooperate in a 
disciplinary investigation—Indefinite suspension with conditions for 
reinstatement. 
(No. 2012-1692—Submitted January 23, 2013—Decided April 16, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-002. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Charles McGowan of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0066471, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1996.  
On December 30, 2010, we suspended McGowan’s license to practice law on an 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
interim basis following his felony convictions for conspiracy to commit money 
laundering and willful failure to report the receipt of more than $10,000 in the 
course of his trade or business as an attorney.  In re McGowan, 127 Ohio St.3d 
1488, 2010-Ohio-6467, 939 N.E.2d 185. 
{¶ 2} In February 2011, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a three-
count complaint alleging that McGowan had violated the Rules of Professional 
Conduct and the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility as 
a result of the conduct underlying his felony convictions, his handling of two 
client matters, and his failure to respond to the resulting disciplinary 
investigations. 
{¶ 3} The parties submitted stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 
aggravating and mitigating factors and jointly waived a formal hearing on the 
matter.  They suggested that the appropriate sanction for McGowan’s misconduct 
is an indefinite suspension from the practice of law with credit for time served 
under his interim felony suspension.  They further recommended that he not be 
permitted to petition for reinstatement until he has completed his term of federal 
supervised release, made restitution of any unearned fees to his clients, 
reimbursed the Clients’ Security Fund for any claims that it has paid to his clients, 
and paid the cost of these proceedings.  The panel and board have adopted these 
stipulations of fact and misconduct and recommend that we adopt the parties’ 
jointly recommended sanction. 
{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and find that 
an indefinite suspension from the practice of law is the appropriate sanction for 
McGowan’s misconduct.  In light of the fact that McGowan failed to cooperate in 
relator’s disciplinary investigations and that he is still under supervised release, 
however, we do not credit McGowan with the time he has served under his 
interim felony suspension. 
 
January Term, 2013 
 
3
Misconduct 
Felony Convictions 
{¶ 5} Adopting the parties’ stipulations of fact and misconduct, the board 
found that on December 8, 2009, McGowan pleaded guilty to a felony count of 
conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(h) and a 
separate count of willful failure to report the receipt of more than $10,000 in the 
course of his trade or business as an attorney in violation of 31 U.S.C. 5331 and 
5322(a) and 31 C.F.R. 103.30. 
{¶ 6} The board found that the conduct that resulted in McGowan’s 
felony convictions also violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or 
trustworthiness), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law). 
The Pyles Matter 
{¶ 7} Peggy Pyles retained McGowan to defend her against a charge of 
driving while intoxicated and paid $900 toward his quoted fee of $1,500.  
McGowan appeared at Pyles’s arraignment but erroneously assumed that this 
appearance would cause him to be entered as counsel of record.  Because he was 
not listed as counsel of record, he did not receive hearing notices from the court 
and failed to appear at two hearings, though he did perform some investigatory 
work in the case.  In McGowan’s absence, Pyles elected to proceed pro se.  
Thereafter, McGowan refunded one third of Pyles’s payment.  However, he failed 
to respond to the investigation of Pyles’s grievance and a notice of arbitration of 
her fee dispute. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the board found that this conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
representing a client), 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or 
other property that the client is entitled to receive), 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary 
authority during an investigation), and 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring 
a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation). 
The Thurman Matter 
{¶ 9} James Thurman Jr. retained McGowan to represent him in a 
personal-injury matter and executed a contingent-fee agreement.  McGowan did 
not advise Thurman that he did not carry professional liability insurance and thus 
did not have Thurman sign a written acknowledgement of that fact.  He 
communicated only sporadically with Thurman and failed to keep him adequately 
informed of the status of the case.  Thurman eventually became dissatisfied and 
terminated McGowan’s representation; McGowan cooperated with the new 
counsel.  He did not, however, respond to relator’s investigation of Thurman’s 
grievance. 
{¶ 10} McGowan’s conduct in the Thurman matter occurred both before 
and after the February 1, 2007 effective date of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct, and therefore relator charged him under both the Disciplinary Rules of 
the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct.  
The parties stipulated and the board found that McGowan’s conduct violated DR 
1-104 and Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to disclose to the client that the 
lawyer lacks professional liability insurance and maintain a copy of that 
disclosure, signed by the client, for five years after termination of the 
representation), DR 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting neglect of an entrusted legal matter), 
and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b). 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
January Term, 2013 
 
5
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. 
{¶ 12} Regarding aggravating factors, the parties have stipulated and the 
board has found that McGowan acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged 
in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, initially failed to cooperate 
in the disciplinary process, and caused harm to vulnerable clients.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), and (h).  Mitigating factors include the 
absence of a prior disciplinary record and the imposition of criminal sanctions 
following McGowan’s felony convictions—a six-month prison term, three years 
of supervised release, 150 hours of community service, and court-ordered 
participation in a mental-health-treatment program.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a) and (f). 
{¶ 13} The parties and board recommend that McGowan be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law and that he not be permitted to petition for 
reinstatement until he has completed his federal supervised release, made 
restitution of unearned fees to his clients, reimbursed the Clients’ Security Fund 
for any claims paid to his clients, and paid the costs of these disciplinary 
proceedings in full.  They further recommend that we credit McGowan for the 
time he has served under his December 30, 2010 interim felony suspension. 
{¶ 14} In support of this sanction, the board cites the following cases:  
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Hunter, 130 Ohio St.3d 355, 2011-Ohio-5788,  958 
N.E.2d 567 (imposing an indefinite suspension with reinstatement conditioned on 
the completion of federal supervised release and the payment of restitution for an 
attorney who was convicted of failing to report a cash payment of more than 
$10,000 to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), neglected two client matters, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
and overdrew his client trust account); Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 128 Ohio 
St.3d 390, 2011-Ohio-957, 944 N.E.2d 1166 (imposing an indefinite suspension 
with credit for time served for an attorney convicted of conspiracy to defraud the 
IRS, making false tax returns, and corruptly endeavoring to impede an IRS 
investigation); and Disciplinary Counsel v. Bennett, 124 Ohio St.3d 314, 2010-
Ohio-313, 921 N.E.2d 1064 (imposing an indefinite suspension with credit for 
time served under an interim felony suspension and conditioning reinstatement on 
the completion of supervised release for an attorney convicted of illegally 
structuring financial transactions to evade federal reporting requirements). 
{¶ 15} In this case, McGowan has engaged in illegal conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, neglected two client matters, failed 
to deliver funds that a client was entitled to receive, failed to reasonably 
communicate with a client, and failed to advise a client that he did not carry 
professional liability insurance.  He also failed to cooperate in the ensuing 
disciplinary proceedings until after relator had filed its complaint with the board.  
It is undeniable that his actions adversely reflect upon his honesty, 
trustworthiness, and fitness to practice law.  Therefore, we adopt the parties’ 
stipulations of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors as adopted 
by the board. 
{¶ 16} Of the cases that the board cited in support of its recommended 
sanction, we find the facts in Hunter to be most comparable to the facts of this 
case.  Like McGowan, Hunter not only committed felony offenses involving the 
failure to report cash transactions of more than $10,000 to the IRS but also 
neglected and failed to communicate with clients regarding the status of their 
legal matters.  Id. at ¶ 4, 6, and 8.  While McGowan was also convicted of 
conspiring to commit money laundering, Hunter was convicted of failing to report 
a cash payment in excess of $10,000.  He also failed to maintain adequate 
accounting and reconciliation procedures for his client trust account, causing him 
January Term, 2013 
 
7
to overdraw the account on two separate occasions.  Id. at ¶ 12.  The key 
difference between these cases, however, is that Hunter made full and free 
disclosure to the board and demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward the 
disciplinary proceedings.  Id. at ¶ 15; see BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  
McGowan, in contrast, failed to respond to the disciplinary investigation until 
after the complaint had been filed.  This fact also distinguishes McGowan’s 
conduct from that of Smith and Bennett.  See Smith, 128 Ohio St.3d 390, 2011-
Ohio-957, 944 N.E.2d 1166, at ¶ 11; Bennett, 124 Ohio St.3d 314, 2010-Ohio-
313, 921 N.E.2d 1064, at ¶ 23. 
{¶ 17} Based on McGowan’s failure to cooperate in the disciplinary 
investigation and his ongoing federal supervised release—which it appears will 
not terminate until July 2014—we decline to credit McGowan for the time he has 
served under his interim felony suspension.  We adopt the board’s recommended 
sanction in all other respects. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, Charles William McGowan is indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio.  He shall not be permitted to petition for 
reinstatement until he has completed the term of federal supervised release 
imposed against him in United States v. McGowan, S.D. Ohio No. 2:09cr285 
(Dec. 2, 2010), made restitution of unearned fees to his clients, including $600 to 
Pyles, reimbursed the Clients’ Security Fund for any claims paid to his clients, 
and paid the costs necessary to prosecute this action.  Costs are taxed to 
McGowan. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, and O’NEILL, JJ., dissent and would grant 
McGowan credit for time served under his interim felony suspension. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
Jeffrey C. Rogers; and Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha 
Clous, Assistant Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Charles McGowan, pro se. 
______________________