Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Manning

Citation: 2008-Ohio-3319

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Manning, 119 Ohio St.3d 52, 2008-Ohio-3319.] 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MANNING. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Manning,  
119 Ohio St.3d 52, 2008-Ohio-3319.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct involving dishonesty — Conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Mishandling of trust 
account — Failure to promptly pay client — Six-month suspension 
followed by probation. 
(No. 2008-0037 – Submitted March 12, 2008 – Decided July 8, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-036. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Thomas Joel Manning of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0059759, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1992.  
On November 22, 2006, we suspended respondent’s license to practice for two 
years after finding that he had committed professional misconduct, including 
having falsely told clients that he had filed and settled their medical-malpractice 
claim.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Manning, 111 Ohio St.3d 349, 2006-Ohio-5794, 
856 N.E.2d 259. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommends that we now suspend respondent’s license for six months, with the 
suspension to commence at the end of his current two-year suspension, based on 
findings that he misled another client about the availability of her settlement 
proceeds and then used the funds to pay his business expenses.  We agree that 
respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility as found by the board 
and that a six-month suspension, to be served consecutively, is appropriate. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent in a single-
count complaint with violations of five Disciplinary Rules.  A panel of the board 
heard the case, including the parties’ comprehensive stipulations, made findings 
of misconduct, and recommended a six-month suspension to run concurrently 
with respondent’s current suspension and with a two-year probation period to 
follow.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and sanction but 
recommended that the six-month suspension be served consecutively. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} In April 2005, Irene Scearce retained respondent to pursue a claim 
for injuries she sustained when another vehicle rear-ended the vehicle in which 
she was a passenger.  Respondent explored settlement with Allstate Insurance 
Company, the tortfeasor’s insurer, and Hartford Insurance Company, the insurer 
of the other driver.  In May 2006, Allstate disbursed a $12,500 settlement check, 
representing the policy limit, made payable to respondent and Scearce. 
{¶ 5} Scearce endorsed the check, and on May 9, 2006, respondent 
deposited the $12,500 into his client trust account.  The deposit increased the 
account balance from $116.05 to $12,616.05.  The next day, respondent paid 
himself $4,166.66, his one-third share of the settlement, leaving a balance of 
$8,449.39 in the account.  After respondent’s fee, Scearce should have been paid 
$8,071.37, or two-thirds of the settlement ($8,333.33) less advanced expenses 
($261.97). 
{¶ 6} Respondent did not immediately remit his client’s share of the 
settlement proceeds.  Within days of receiving the funds, he instead transferred 
$1,500 from his trust account to cover an overdraft in his operating account, 
depleting the account to $6,949.39.  Then, on May 22, 2006, respondent wrote a 
check to Scearce for $3,071.37, leaving just $3,878.02 in the trust account.  He 
told Scearce that he retained $5,000 from the distribution to pay subrogation 
claims for medical expenses. 
January Term, 2008 
3 
{¶ 7} Though respondent had anticipated that Hartford would have 
subrogation rights, he had actually already spent part of the money earmarked for 
that purpose by paying his own business expenses.  Over the next few weeks, 
respondent depleted the rest of Scearce’s money and all of his trust account by 
paying for personal, business, and other clients’ expenses. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated that respondent expended trust funds in the 
following amounts by the end of May 2006: (1) $1,000 for personal expenses, (2) 
a $400 check for a business bridge loan, (3) a $150 check for another client’s 
court costs, (4) $450.64 for his malpractice insurance, and (5) $1,515 for another 
client’s obligation.  On June 2, 2006, the trust account contained only $362.38, 
and one check with which respondent had tried to pay a probate court $436 was 
returned for insufficient funds.  Respondent wrote another check from his trust 
account that day to pay his receptionist $280.  That check also bounced. 
{¶ 9} By June 6, 2006, respondent’s trust account had a negative 
balance.  Though none of the Scearce settlement money remained in trust, 
respondent did not then advise Scearce what had happened to her $5,000.  
Respondent did, however, eventually pay her that amount.  In October 2006, 
respondent settled Scearce’s claim against Hartford’s insured for $60,000.  He 
deducted $5,000 from his contingent fee and paid it to Scearce along with other 
distributions.  In an “Itemized Statement for Personal Injury Distribution,” 
respondent represented that he had made these disbursements: 
“• Settlement Received (Hartford UIM Claim) 
 
$60,000 
• Waiver by Hartford of subrogation   
 
 
$5,000 
    for medical payments benefits 
  
• Less 33-1/3% for attorney fees per contract of 4/14/05 
($20,000) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
________ 
• Total Disbursed to Client 
 
 
 
 
$45,000”  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated and the board found that respondent’s 
misuse of his client trust account and misrepresentation to his client violated DR 
1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), l-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on a 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 9-102(A) (requiring a lawyer to deposit and 
maintain client funds, other than advances for costs and expenses, in a separate 
and identifiable bank account), 9-102(B)(3) (requiring a lawyer to maintain 
complete records of and account for client property in the lawyer’s possession), 
and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or deliver client funds on 
request).  We adopt these findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} The parties also stipulated that respondent’s cooperation in the 
disciplinary process and restitution weighed in favor of a lenient sanction, 
whereas his disciplinary record and selfish motive weighed against him.  The 
board considered these mitigating and aggravating factors.  The parties and panel 
recommended a six-month suspension, to run concurrently with the suspension 
that he is now under and to be followed by two years of probation.  The board, 
however, recommended a six-month suspension to run consecutively. 
{¶ 12} Respondent has not objected to the board’s recommendation, 
which is consistent with the policy requiring an actual suspension for a violation 
of DR 1-102(A)(4).  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Rooney, 110 Ohio St.3d 
349, 2006-Ohio-4576, 853 N.E.2d 663.  We therefore suspend respondent from 
the practice of law in Ohio for six months.  The suspension is to commence at the 
conclusion of the two-year suspension period ordered in Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Manning, 111 Ohio St.3d 349, 2006-Ohio-5794, 856 N.E.2d 259, and is to be 
followed by two years of probation under Gov.Bar R. V(9).  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
William G. Knapp III, for respondent. 
______________________