Case Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Matlock

Citation: 2012-Ohio-5638

Docket Number: 2012-1023

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-12-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Matlock, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5638.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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-5638 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. MATLOCK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Matlock,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5638.] 
(No. 2012-1023—Submitted August 22, 2012—Decided December 5, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-003. 
_____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michael Duane Matlock of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0008564, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1985.  
We have previously suspended Matlock from the practice of law in Ohio for 
failing to comply with the continuing legal education (“CLE”) requirements of 
Gov.Bar R. X.  See In re Report of Commission on Continuing Legal Edn., 88 
Ohio St.3d 1468, 726 N.E.2d 1006 (2000).  We have also suspended Matlock 
from the practice of law in Ohio on four separate occasions for failing to file a 
certificate of registration and pay applicable fees in accordance with Gov.Bar R. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
VI.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Matlock, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 
2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671; In re Attorney Registration Suspension of 
Matlock, 116 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2007-Ohio-6463, 877 N.E.2d 305; In re Attorney 
Registration Suspension of Matlock, 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 
N.E.2d 1256; In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Matlock, 130 Ohio St.3d 
1420, 2011-Ohio-5627, 956 N.E.2d 310.  Matlock’s most recent attorney-
registration suspension remains in effect. 
{¶ 2} In this case, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline recommends that we suspend Matlock from the practice of law for two 
years, with one year of the suspension stayed on conditions designed to protect 
the public and with reinstatement subject to specified conditions.  The board’s 
recommendation is based on its finding that Matlock committed professional 
misconduct by failing to obtain a written contingent-fee agreement and failing to 
respond to disciplinary investigative inquiries in one client matter, failing to 
complete and file forms for a qualified domestic-relations order (“QDRO”) for 
another client, failing to communicate with both clients regarding their legal 
matters and failing to inform them that he did not maintain professional-liability 
insurance, and commingling private funds and client funds and failing to 
document transactions for his client trust account.  We agree that Matlock 
committed the professional misconduct found by the board, and we also agree that 
the appropriate sanction is a two-year suspension with one year conditionally 
stayed. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Dayton Bar Association, charged Matlock in a six-count 
second amended complaint with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct and one violation of the Rules for the Government of the Bar in Ohio.  
The parties stipulated to certain facts and mitigating factors and recommended 
that Matlock be suspended from the practice of law for one year without receiving 
credit for the period covered by his current attorney-registration suspension. 
January Term, 2012 
 
3
{¶ 4} A panel of three board members heard the case and made findings 
of fact and conclusions of law.  The panel recommended that Matlock be 
suspended from the practice of law for two years with one year of the suspension 
stayed on certain conditions and reinstatement subject to specified conditions.  
The panel added that Matlock should not receive credit for time served on his 
attorney-registration suspension.  The board adopted the panel’s findings, 
conclusions, and recommended sanction, and so do we. 
{¶ 5} The parties have not objected to the board’s report and 
recommendation. 
Misconduct 
Failing to Obtain Written Contingent-Fee Agreement 
and Failing to Respond to Investigative Inquiries and Demands 
{¶ 6} In 2008, Tommy Jones paid Matlock $35 to have him write a letter 
to the client’s customer demanding payment of $1,182 for painting services.  
There was no written fee agreement, but Matlock claimed that there was an oral 
agreement in which he would receive a one-third contingent fee.  Matlock wrote 
the requested letter, and the client’s customer provided him with a check for the 
$1,182 demanded. 
{¶ 7} Matlock then informed Jones that he would deduct his claimed 
one-third fee and forward the $788 balance to Jones, and Jones filed a complaint 
with relator.  Jones received a $788 check from Matlock and after depositing it, 
Jones was notified by his bank that the check had been dishonored. 
{¶ 8} As part of its investigation of Jones’s complaint, relator requested 
copies of Matlock’s trust-account statements for 2007 and 2008 and copies of any 
written fee agreement or engagement letter between respondent and the client, but 
Matlock failed to respond to relator’s initial three letters or to furnish the 
requested materials.  Matlock later informed Jones that the check he had 
previously sent had been written on the wrong account, and he subsequently sent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Jones a money order for $825.  Matlock ultimately provided some financial 
records to relator. 
{¶ 9} The board found, and we agree, that Matlock’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(b) (requiring an attorney to communicate the nature and scope 
of the representation to the client and the rate of the fee, preferably in writing, 
before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation), 1.5(c) 
(requiring an attorney to have set forth a contingent-fee agreement in a writing 
signed by the client), 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to 
respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an 
investigation), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate in a 
disciplinary investigation). 
Failing to Prepare and File QDRO 
{¶ 10} In 1993, Matlock represented Jeraldine Pettiford in a divorce case.  
In 2007, after the divorce case had concluded, it was discovered that Matlock had 
failed to file a QDRO entitling Pettiford to receive a portion of her ex-husband’s 
pension and an annuity.  Matlock was to have performed these services as part of 
his representation of Pettiford in the divorce.  In 2007, Matlock demanded and 
received $450 from Pettiford to file the required QDRO forms with the court, her 
ex-husband’s retirement system, and the company that had the annuity.  Despite 
Matlock’s multiple representations to Pettiford that he had either filed or was 
about to file the QDRO forms, he failed to do so, and in November 2007, the 
domestic relations court found him in contempt for failure to file the QDRO.  
Pettiford then filed the QDRO forms with the court and the retirement system 
herself.  After Pettiford complained to Matlock about his representation of her, he 
sent her a cashier’s check for $230. 
{¶ 11} The board found, and we agree, that Matlock’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client). 
January Term, 2012 
 
5
Use of Trust Account as Personal Account 
{¶ 12} In 2007 and 2008, during Matlock’s representation of Pettiford and 
Jones, Matlock deposited personal funds into his client trust account and paid 
personal expenses from the trust account.  Matlock did not retain sufficient 
records documenting the transactions involving his client trust account. 
{¶ 13} The board found, and we agree, that Matlock’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold funds of clients in an interest-
bearing client trust account, separate from the lawyer’s own funds). 
Failing to Communicate with Clients Regarding 
Legal Matters and Failing to Inform Clients that he did not Maintain 
Professional-Liability Insurance 
{¶ 14} As noted previously, Matlock did not properly communicate with 
Jones and Pettiford about their legal matters.  In addition, during his 
representation of the clients in 2007 and 2008, he did not have professional-
malpractice insurance, and he was unable to produce a written form from any 
client acknowledging that he had informed the client of that fact. 
{¶ 15} The board found, and we agree, that Matlock’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to reasonably consult with the client 
about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished), 
1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter), and 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to give clients written notice if 
the lawyer does not maintain professional-liability insurance and to have clients 
sign the notice). 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Sanction 
{¶ 16} “When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the duties the lawyer violated and sanctions imposed in 
similar cases.”  Toledo Bar Assn. v. Weisberg, 124 Ohio St.3d 274, 2010-Ohio-
142, 921 N.E.2d 641, ¶ 15.  To determine the appropriate sanction, we also 
consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances found in BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Crosby, 124 Ohio St.3d 226, 2009-Ohio-6763, 
921 N.E.2d 225, ¶ 16. 
{¶ 17} The board determined that the following aggravating factors are 
pertinent for Matlock’s conduct here:  (1) prior disciplinary offenses for his 
numerous attorney-registration suspensions, (2) a pattern of misconduct by his 
admitted inattention to the details of the practice of law, (3) the commission of 
multiple offenses, and (4) his initial failure to cooperate in the disciplinary 
process.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (c), (d), and (e).  In mitigation, the board 
found that Matlock:  (1) lacked a dishonest or selfish motive, (2) rectified the 
consequences of his misconduct by returning unearned funds to the two clients 
and that relator did not establish that either client had been damaged as a result of 
the misconduct, (3) fully and freely disclosed and admitted his misconduct and 
cooperated in the proceeding once he retained counsel, and (4) acknowledged the 
wrongfulness of his conduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b), (c), and (d). 
{¶ 18} The board further noted that Matlock was not entitled to present 
chemical dependency or mental disability as a mitigating factor because there was 
insufficient evidence that he had completed a treatment program or that he 
suffered from a mental disability at the time of the misconduct.  Prior to the 
hearing, pursuant to the panel’s order, David G. Bienenfeld, M.D., conducted a 
psychiatric examination of respondent and concluded that Matlock does not suffer 
from a mental illness.  Dr. Bienenfeld did, however, diagnose Matlock as 
suffering from “alcohol dependence, with physiological dependence, sustained 
January Term, 2012 
 
7
partial remission” and cirrhosis of the liver and noted that during Matlock’s heavy 
drinking from 1993 to 2010, his marriage deteriorated, he was divorced, and he 
became depressed.  The board expressed particular concern regarding Dr. 
Bienenfeld’s conclusion that Matlock’s alcohol-dependence remission “is 
exceedingly rare without either continued outpatient treatment or Alcoholics 
Anonymous” and that Matlock currently was not enrolled in a treatment program  
and had exhibited an aversion to “such intervention and maintenance.”           
{¶ 19} The mishandling of client funds by commingling or poor 
management is of paramount importance, and this misconduct requires a 
substantial sanction regardless of whether a client is harmed.  See Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Riek, 125 Ohio St.3d 46, 2010-Ohio-1556, 925 N.E.2d 980, ¶ 10, and 
cases cited therein.  In Riek, the court held that that the recommended sanction of 
an 18-month suspension with 12 months stayed was within the range of sanctions 
imposed by the court for similar misconduct involving attorneys who have failed 
to properly maintain their trust accounts.  Id. at ¶ 12, citing Crosby, 124 Ohio 
St.3d 226, 2009-Ohio-6763, 921 N.E.2d 225, at ¶ 19 (sanctions ranging from a 
stayed six-month suspension to an indefinite suspension). 
{¶ 20} In recommending its sanction here of a two-year license 
suspension with one year stayed upon conditions related to respondent’s alcohol 
dependency, the board considered several cases, including Akron Bar Assn. v. 
McNerny, 122 Ohio St.3d 40, 2009-Ohio-2374, 907 N.E.2d 1167, in which we 
imposed a similar sanction of a two-year suspension with the second year 
conditionally stayed for misconduct that included trust-account and malpractice-
insurance improprieties as well as a failure to appropriately respond to the 
disciplinary process.  Id. at ¶ 20-23.  In that case, we noted that alcohol 
dependence was—as here—not a mitigating factor due to the lack of competent 
medical evidence establishing a causal connection between the alcoholism and the 
misconduct and the questionable commitment of the attorney to a recovery 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
program, but we considered it in determining appropriate conditions for the stayed 
portion of the suspension.  Id. at ¶ 16, 21. 
{¶ 21} Upon our independent review of the relevant factors, we agree that 
the sanction recommended by the board is commensurate with Matlock’s 
misconduct.  We therefore suspend Matlock from the practice of law in Ohio for 
two years, with one year of the suspension stayed on the following conditions:  
(1) Matlock enters into a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program 
(“OLAP”) for such time as recommended by OLAP, (2) Matlock fully complies 
with all OLAP recommendations, including regular attendance at Alcoholics 
Anonymous meetings, (3) Matlock commit no further misconduct, and (4) during 
the period of his stayed suspension and for one year following the stayed 
suspension, Matlock is supervised by a monitor appointed by relator pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(9) to assure, among other things, that he is in full compliance with 
his obligations regarding his OLAP contract and for the handling of his client 
trust account and the required disclosures relating to malpractice insurance.  
Matlock’s reinstatement from the suspension shall be subject to the requirements 
of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A) and shall be specifically conditioned on his compliance 
with the conditions specified for the stayed suspension and his presentation of a 
certificate from a qualified psychiatrist that he is able to return to the competent, 
ethical, and professional practice of law.  Furthermore, Matlock shall engage in 
no further misconduct.  If Matlock fails to comply with these conditions, the stay 
will be lifted, and he will serve the entire two-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to 
Matlock. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
 
Beiser, Greer, & Landis, and David P. Williamson, for relator. 
January Term, 2012 
 
9
 
Mia Wortham Spells, for respondent. 
_____________________