Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Ritch

Citation: 2001-Ohio-286

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-02-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Ritch, 91 Ohio St.3d 71, 2001-Ohio-286.] 
 
 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. RITCH. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Ritch (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 71.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension made retroactive — 
Converting clients’ funds to own use — Issuing checks for which there 
were insufficient funds to allow payment of those checks — Depositing 
client funds into an IOLTA but failing to promptly pay or deliver funds to 
client — Failing to maintain accurate records of client funds — Refusing 
to turn over legal files to client when requested. 
(No. 00-1139 — Submitted October 11, 2000 — Decided February 7, 
2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-14. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J.  In late 1997, the crisis center at St. Thomas Hospital in 
Akron, Ohio, assessed attorney Michael E. Ritch of Peninsula, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0039222, as a probable cocaine and alcohol addict.  Between 
November 17, 1997 and December 31, 1997, Ritch gave approximately $300 a 
day to his friend Anthony McIvery to buy crack cocaine for the two of them to 
smoke.  Some of the money came from the accounts of clients that Ritch was 
representing. 
 
One of these clients was McIvery, whom Ritch had represented in a real 
estate transaction.  Ritch received a check for $7,912.04 from the closing of 
McIvery’s house, which he deposited into his IOLTA trust account at FirstMerit 
Bank.  He testified to a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court (the “board”) that he was to receive a legal fee of 
$750 and that the balance of the check amount was to be delivered to McIvery. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
On August 4, 1998, Ritch received a letter from McIvery asking for the 
proceeds from the transactions.  Ritch responded that he had repaid McIvery in 
full.  McIvery testified that Ritch never told him that he was using money from 
the house closing to buy drugs.  McIvery believed that Ritch had allowed him to 
use a portion of the drugs because he had the connections to obtain them. 
 
On June 2, 2000, the panel found Ritch to have violated several 
Disciplinary Rules for converting clients’ funds to his own use, issuing checks for 
which there were insufficient funds to allow payment of those checks, and having 
his accounts closed by the FirstMerit Bank.  These actions violated DR 1-
102(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not violate a Disciplinary Rule), DR 1-102(A)(3) (a 
lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), DR 1-
102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation), and DR 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in 
any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
 
The panel also found that Ritch had violated Disciplinary Rules by 
depositing client funds into an IOLTA but failing to promptly pay or deliver the 
funds to his client, and by failing to maintain accurate records of the funds.  These 
actions violated DR 9-102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all 
funds of a client coming into the possession of the lawyer) and DR 9-102(B)(4) (a 
lawyer shall promptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by a client any 
funds in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive). 
 
The panel further found that Ritch had refused to turn over legal files to a 
client when requested.  This action violated DR 2-110(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not 
withdraw from employment until he has taken reasonable steps to void 
foreseeable prejudice to the rights of his client).  The board adopted the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
 
Ritch has attempted to cleanse himself of drugs and alcohol.  He reported 
his conduct to the Akron Bar Association in October 1998, was treated for his 
January Term, 2001 
3 
addiction by undertaking an intensive, six-month outpatient therapy, and remains 
an active participant in the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program and in Alcoholics 
Anonymous.  He requests that this court impose a definite suspension of up to 
twenty-four months.  The board recommends an indefinite suspension retroactive 
to December 4, 1998, the date he attained sobriety. 
 
We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board.  
Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state 
of Ohio.  The suspension is retroactive to September 3, 1999, the date on which 
respondent’s attorney registration status as an attorney in Ohio changed to 
inactive.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Lundberg 
Stratton, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  I agree that an indefinite suspension is the 
appropriate sanction in this case.  But I respectfully disagree with the decision to 
make that suspension retroactive to some prior date. 
__________________ 
 
Michael L. Robinson, for relator. 
 
Michael Drain, for respondent. 
__________________