Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moushey

Citation: 2004-Ohio-6897

Docket Number: 20041373

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-12-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moushey, 104 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-Ohio-6897.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. MOUSHEY. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moushey, 104 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-Ohio-
6897.] 
Attorneys at law – Misconduct – Disbarment — Conduct involving deceit and 
misrepresentation – Failure to return unearned fee – Practicing law while 
under suspension — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter – Damaging a 
client in course of representation. 
(No. 2004-1373 — Submitted September 28, 2004 — Decided December 22, 
2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-022. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michael Lee Moushey of Symmes, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0033805, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1975.  
On October 2, 2002, we indefinitely suspended respondent from practice for his 
repeated neglect of clients’ cases, his pattern of deceit, and his failure to cooperate 
in the investigation of his misconduct.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moushey, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 461, 2002-Ohio-4850, 776 N.E.2d 16. 
{¶ 2} On May 28, 2003, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed an 
amended complaint charging respondent with additional violations of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  Respondent was served with the complaint but did 
not answer, and relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A 
master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline granted the motion, making findings of misconduct and a 
recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 3} In January and February 2001, a client gave respondent two checks 
to pay taxes based on a calendar-year 2000 estimate, one check made payable to 
respondent for $10,000 and another check made payable to his client trust account 
for $15,000.  Respondent endorsed and deposited both checks but never paid the 
taxes.  He later may have also provided false documentation to the client to hide 
the conversion.  In June 2002, the client was granted a default judgment against 
respondent for $50,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. 
{¶ 4} The board found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) 
(barring 
conduct 
involving 
fraud, 
deceit, 
dishonesty, 
or 
misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (barring conduct prejudicial to the administration 
of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney’s 
fitness to practice law), 6-10l(A)(l) (requiring an attorney to accept only cases the 
attorney is competent to handle), 6-10l(A)(3) (barring an attorney from neglecting 
an entrusted legal matter), 7-l01(A)(1) (requiring an attorney to seek the lawful 
objectives of a client through reasonable means), 7-l01(A)(2) (requiring an 
attorney to carry out a contract of employment), 7-l0l(A)(3) (barring an attorney 
from damaging a client in the course of representation), 7-102(A)(5) (prohibiting 
an attorney from making a false statement of fact), 9-102(B)(2) (requiring an 
attorney to put client’s funds in a place of safekeeping), 9-102(B)(3) (requiring an 
attorney to maintain complete records of all funds of a client and render 
appropriate accounts), and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring an attorney to promptly pay 
client funds to which he or she is entitled). 
Count Two 
{¶ 5} A second client’s 1996 federal income tax returns were selected for 
an audit, and he initially paid another attorney $835 to represent him.  When that 
attorney withdrew, the attorney promised the client that he would forward to 
January Term, 2004 
3 
respondent the client’s file and $650 in unearned fees.  Respondent withdrew one 
week later, citing a conflict of interest.  The client repeatedly demanded that 
respondent return his money; however, respondent did no work in the case and 
kept the $650. 
{¶ 6} The board found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(6), 2-110(A)(3) (requiring an attorney on withdrawal from employment to 
promptly repay unearned fees), 6-101(A)(1), and 9-102(B)(4). 
Count Three 
{¶ 7} A third client’s 1996 federal income tax return was also selected 
for an audit, the client also initially retained another attorney for $835 to represent 
him, and that attorney also withdrew.  The attorney forwarded the client’s file and 
$500 in unearned fees to respondent; however, the client decided to find his own 
successor counsel and notified respondent that he did not wish to retain him.  The 
client requested that respondent return the $500 retainer, but respondent did not 
return the money even though he did no work on the case. 
{¶ 8} The board found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-
l02(A)(6), 2-110(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4). 
Count Four 
{¶ 9} To investigate the grievances filed against respondent, relator 
repeatedly mailed certified and other letters of inquiry to his office and residence 
addresses.  Notwithstanding this effort, respondent did not respond to any of the 
allegations against him.  The board found that respondent had thereby violated 
DR 1-l02(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring an attorney 
to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). 
Count Five 
{¶ 10} After our October 2, 2002 order indefinitely suspending 
respondent’s license, a fourth client engaged him in November of that year to 
represent a company in a collection matter.  In the course of this representation, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
respondent held himself out as a licensed attorney, negotiated a payment 
arrangement to avoid a judgment debtor’s examination, authorized the placement 
of his name on a court entry as attorney for the judgment debtor, and purported to 
transfer client funds through his IOLTA account. 
{¶ 11} The board found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6).  Moreover, because respondent had 
practiced law in violation of our indefinite-suspension order, the board found that 
respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. V(8)(E). The board also found, based on the 
master commissioner’s report, another violation for failure to cooperate under 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and a violation for practicing law under suspension, although 
neither specified facts to substantiate this misconduct and for the latter violation, 
both cited Gov.Bar R. VI(2), which governs applying for inactive status. 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating features of respondent’s case.  See 
Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”)  As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had 
prior disciplinary offenses and dishonest or selfish motives, he had committed a 
pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses, he had not cooperated and refused to 
recognize his wrongdoing, and he had harmed vulnerable victims and failed to 
make restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i). 
{¶ 13} Relator recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred.  
The master commissioner urged the board to disbar because of the “multiple 
offenses resulting in actual prejudice to the clients and the administration of 
justice,” the “failure to cooperate with the Disciplinary investigation,” and the 
“failure to comply with the previous sanctions.”  The board also recommended 
permanent disbarment. 
January Term, 2004 
5 
{¶ 14} On review, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-
102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 2-110(A)(3), 6-101(A)(1), 6-10l(A)(3), 7-l01(A)(1), 7-
l01(A)(2), 7-l0l(A)(3), 7-102(A)(5), 9-102(B)(2), 9-102(B)(3), and 9-102(B)(4), 
and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and V(8)(E).  We also agree that permanent disbarment 
is appropriate. 
{¶ 15} As we said in Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 102 Ohio St.3d 264, 
2004-Ohio-2683, 809 N.E.2d 1113, ¶ 16: 
{¶ 16} “Taking retainers and failing to carry out contracts of employment 
is tantamount to theft of the fee from the client.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Sigall 
(1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 15, 17, 14 OBR 320, 470 N.E.2d 886.  The presumptive 
disciplinary measure for such acts of misappropriation is disbarment.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. France, 97 Ohio St.3d 240, 2002-Ohio-5945, 778 N.E.2d 
573, ¶ 11.”  Moreover, in Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fernandez, 99 Ohio St.3d 426, 
2003-Ohio-4078, 793 N.E.2d 434, we disbarred an attorney who had 
misappropriated funds while her license was under indefinite suspension and also 
failed to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.  Respondent has 
exacerbated his situation with these transgressions and others.  Since his indefinite 
suspension, we have cited respondent twice for contempt – once because he did 
not timely surrender his certificate of admission and affidavit of compliance, 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moushey, 98 Ohio St.3d 1469, 2003-Ohio-916, 784 
N.E.2d 704, and later for his continuing to practice law while his license was 
under suspension.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moushey, 99 Ohio St.3d 1533, 2003-
Ohio-4647, 795 N.E.2d 55. 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
__________________ 
 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, Jill M. Snitcher McQuain, Assistant Bar 
Counsel, Joseph R. Cook, and Joel H. Mirman, for relator. 
_____________________