Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. King

Citation: 2012-Ohio-873

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-03-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. King, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-873.] 
 
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-873 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. KING. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. King,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-873.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple violations of Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including violations relating to client trust account, engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and failing to 
disclose to clients that attorney did not to carry professional-liability 
insurance—Two-year suspension. 
(No. 2011-1418—Submitted October 5, 2011—Decided March 6, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio, No. 10-062. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Ray Jetmore King of Gahanna, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0020733, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1974.  
Relator, Columbus Bar Association, and respondent stipulated to the facts and 
misconduct alleged in relator’s amended complaint.  A three-member panel of the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard testimony in the 
case, issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, and ultimately recommended 
that we suspend respondent’s license to practice law for two years.  The board 
adopted the panel’s report in full. 
{¶ 2} The parties did not object to the board’s report, and we ordered 
respondent to show cause why we should not adopt the board’s report and 
recommendation.  On review, we find that respondent committed the stipulated 
violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and hereby suspend respondent’s 
license to practice law for two years. 
Misconduct 
Counts One through Three 
{¶ 3} Respondent’s stipulated misuse of his client trust account is the 
basis of these three counts of misconduct.  Respondent stipulated that he had 
deposited into his client trust account money from, or payable to, two clients—a 
corporation and an estate.  A short time later, respondent began using both clients’ 
funds to pay his personal and office expenses, and he continued to do so for 
several months.  This frequently resulted in a balance in the client trust account 
that was less than the amount held in trust for these clients.  To remedy this, 
respondent, on several occasions, deposited personal funds into his client trust 
account.  Three of these deposits exceeded $15,000. 
{¶ 4} All the debts of the estate in Count Two were eventually paid in 
full.  The $100,000 belonging to the corporate client in Count One was also 
repaid, but only after the client’s unsuccessful efforts to secure a return of its 
money prompted it to file a grievance against respondent.  Respondent initially 
attempted to justify his failure to promptly return these funds by alleging that the 
amount owed to the client was in dispute and that he had always been willing and 
able to remit the amount that was not being contested.  Respondent later 
stipulated, however, that the disputed amount, if any, was minimal.  He also 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
stipulated that his professed ability to repay these funds at any time was untrue, 
because the balance in the client trust account was often insufficient to do so.  
Finally, respondent admitted that his delay in returning these funds financially 
harmed his client. 
{¶ 5} Respondent further stipulated that he did not properly maintain and 
oversee his client trust account.  In addition to the improprieties just discussed, 
respondent’s recordkeeping was haphazard.  His admitted failure to keep an 
individual client ledger for each client made it extremely difficult to determine the 
clients to which various withdrawals and deposits pertained. 
{¶ 6} Respondent has stipulated that his misuse of his client trust account 
constituted violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (failure to maintain complete 
records of clients’ funds), 1.15(c) (failure to keep client funds separate from those 
of the lawyer),1 and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation).  He has also stipulated that in Counts One and Two, 
he did not promptly return his clients’ money, in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
1.15(d) (failure to promptly deliver funds that the client is entitled to receive).  
Respondent lastly concedes that, in Count One, he improperly held funds 
belonging to his client and attempted to defend his action by fabricating a fee 
dispute.  Respondent has stipulated that this conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.15(e) (improperly holding funds in dispute) and 8.4(c). 
{¶ 7} The board concluded that respondent had engaged in all of the 
stipulated misconduct and had committed all of the stipulated violations.  We 
agree and accept these findings of misconduct. 
Count Four 
{¶ 8} Respondent stipulated that he did not maintain malpractice 
insurance throughout much of 2009 and 2010 and did not inform many of his 
                                                 
1  A failure to keep client funds separate from those of the lawyer falls under Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 
not 1.15(c). We consider the error in citation within the record to be inadvertent.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
clients.  Respondent stipulated that these actions violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) 
(failure to notify clients in writing that the attorney does not maintain 
professional-liability insurance). 
{¶ 9} The board concluded that respondent had engaged in all of the 
stipulated misconduct and had committed the stipulated violation.  We agree and 
accept these findings. 
Count Five 
{¶ 10} Respondent stipulated that the misconduct set forth in Counts One 
through Four constituted a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct that adversely reflects upon the fitness to practice law). 
{¶ 11} The board concluded that respondent had engaged in the stipulated 
misconduct and had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).  We agree and accept this 
finding regarding misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the duties violated by the lawyer in question and 
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.  Before making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Troy, 121 Ohio St.3d 51, 
2009-Ohio-502, 901 N.E.2d 809, ¶ 11. 
{¶ 13} In this case, the board found four aggravating factors.  It found that 
respondent had (1) submitted false statements during the disciplinary 
investigation, (2) acted with a dishonest and selfish motive, (3) engaged in a 
pattern of misconduct, and (4) committed multiple offenses.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), and (f).  It also found one mitigating factor—the 
absence of any prior disciplinary record.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).  The 
board, however, did not agree with the parties’ stipulation that respondent’s 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
cooperation in the disciplinary proceeding was an additional mitigating factor.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d).  The board felt that respondent’s eventual 
cooperation in the disciplinary process was outweighed by his fabrication of a fee 
dispute and other misrepresentations that respondent initially made in response to 
the grievance filed against him in Count One. 
{¶ 14} The board recommended that respondent’s license to practice law 
be suspended for two years and that reinstatement be premised on the following 
conditions:  (1) respondent’s completion of a minimum of 12 hours of continuing 
legal education related to accounting and law-practice management and (2) 
monitored probation for one year following reinstatement.  The board further 
recommended that the costs of these proceedings be taxed to respondent. 
{¶ 15} We accept the board’s recommendation.  In reviewing sanctions in 
similar cases regarding misuse of client funds, we find Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Crosby, 124 Ohio St.3d 226, 2009-Ohio-6763, 921 N.E.2d 225, to be instructive.  
There, as here, the attorney used his client trust account to pay for personal and 
business expenses, commingled personal funds with those held in trust for his 
clients, and did not maintain accurate records for funds deposited into his client 
trust account.  In imposing a two-year sanction, we stressed: 
 
Even before the General Assembly authorized the creation 
of IOLTAs in R.C. 4705.09, we explained that the “mishandling of 
clients’ funds either by way of conversion, commingling or just 
poor management, encompasses an area of the gravest concern of 
this court in reviewing claimed attorney misconduct.”  Columbus 
Bar Assn. v. Thompson (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 667, 669, 23 O.O. 3d 
541, 433 N.E.2d 602.  We have also reiterated a number of times 
that “it is ‘of the utmost importance that attorneys maintain their 
personal and office accounts separate from their clients’ account’ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
and that any violation of that rule ‘warrants a substantial sanction 
whether or not the client has been harmed.’ ” Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 381, 2006-Ohio-1194, 843 N.E.2d 1198, 
¶ 15, quoting Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance 
Commt. v. Miles (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 574, 577, 669 N.E.2d 831. 
 
Id. at ¶ 15. 
{¶ 16} In the case at bar, respondent not only committed the same 
misconduct as that in Crosby, he additionally fabricated a fee dispute in order to 
justify his failure to promptly return his corporate client’s money.  For these 
reasons, we find that a lesser sanction is inappropriate.  Accordingly, respondent 
is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years with 
reinstatement contingent upon his completion of a minimum of 12 hours of 
continuing legal education related to accounting and law-practice management in 
addition to the continuing-legal-education requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, 
followed by a one-year period of monitored probation.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Mazanee, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A., and Michael S. Loughry; and 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar Counsel, 
for relator. 
 
Ray Jetmore King, pro se. 
______________________