Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Thompson

Citation: 2014-Ohio-2482

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-06-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Thompson, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2482.] 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-2482 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. THOMPSON. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Thompson,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2482.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Withdrawing funds from client trust account for 
personal and business use—Failure to timely withdraw earned fees from 
client trust account—Misappropriation of client funds—Two-year 
suspension, 18 months stayed with monitored probation. 
(No. 2013-1262—Submitted October 9, 2013—Decided June 12, 2014.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2012-092. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Harold Lee Thompson of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0033253, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1975.  In 
March 1982, we publicly reprimanded Thompson based on findings that he had 
withdrawn unearned funds from his client trust account to meet personal and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
office expenses and caused an overdraft of the account.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Thompson, 69 Ohio St.2d 667, 433 N.E.2d 602 (1982). 
{¶ 2} On December 10, 2012, a probable-cause panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline certified to the board a three-count 
complaint filed against Thompson by relator, disciplinary counsel.  In that 
complaint, relator alleged that Thompson had violated the Rules of Professional 
Conduct by using his client trust account as a personal and operating account, 
failing to timely withdraw earned fees from that account, and misappropriating 
client funds. 
{¶ 3} The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, 
aggravation, and mitigation and recommended that Thompson be suspended from 
the practice of law for two years, with 18 months stayed on the condition that he 
successfully complete 18 months of probation.  At the hearing, they also 
submitted Thompson’s testimony and 21 exhibits, 19 of which were stipulated. 
{¶ 4} The panel made findings of fact and conclusions of law and 
recommended that we adopt the parties’ stipulated sanction.  The board adopted 
the panel’s report in its entirety. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we adopt 
the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and suspend Thompson for 
two years with 18 months stayed on the condition that he serve an 18-month 
period of monitored probation. 
Misconduct 
Count I—Use of Client Trust Account for Personal and Business Expenses 
{¶ 5} From December 2010 through April 2012, Thompson used his 
client trust account to hold funds belonging to clients and third parties, but also 
used it as if it were his personal bank account and law-office operating account.  
He used the account to pay his law-office rent, his residential rent, the fee for his 
office parking space, and credit-card and telephone bills.  During this time he also 
issued 77 separate checks to himself for amounts ranging from $25 to $26,750.  
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
He further deposited his personal funds into his client trust account, including 
$9,600 from an advertising refund deposited on February 22, 2011. 
{¶ 6} The parties stipulated, the board found, and we agree that this 
conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold the property of 
clients in an interest-bearing client trust account, separate from the lawyer’s own 
property) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Count II—Failure to Timely Withdraw Earned Fees 
{¶ 7} From December 2010 through September 2011, Thompson settled 
eight contingency-fee cases for gross settlement amounts ranging from $4,480 to 
$129,340.  He prepared a closing statement for each client that stated the total 
amount of the settlement, expenses, and attorney fees, and the amount that the 
client was entitled to receive.  While he paid each client his or her share of the 
settlement proceeds, he failed to promptly withdraw his own fees from his client 
trust account.  Instead, Thompson withdrew his fees using multiple checks issued 
to himself and his creditors over a period of weeks or months in amounts ranging 
from a few dollars to thousands of dollars.  Consequently, he commingled 
personal and client funds in his client trust account.  He also failed to maintain 
appropriate accounting records regarding the ownership of client funds and earned 
fees in the account, which resulted in four overdrafts of the account in September 
2011. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the board found that this conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record 
for each client on whose behalf funds are held), 1.15(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to 
maintain a record for the lawyer’s client trust account, setting forth the name of 
the account, the date, amount, and client affected by each credit and debit, and the 
balance in the account), and 8.4(h).  We adopt these findings of fact and 
misconduct. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Count III—Misappropriation 
{¶ 9} On January 26, 2011, Thompson deposited a $100,000 settlement 
check received on behalf of his client, A.G.  Pursuant to his contingency-fee 
agreement with A.G., Thompson was to receive a fee of $33,333, and A.G. was 
entitled to receive $29,000 from the settlement proceeds.  Because Thompson did 
not distribute the $29,000 to A.G. until July 2011, the balance in his client trust 
account should not have gone below that amount.  But the balance in his client 
trust account dropped as low as $25,467.15 in March 2011 and remained below 
$29,000 from April through June 2011, when it reached a low of $6,556.47.  
Thus, the parties have stipulated and the board has found that Thompson 
misappropriated at least $22,443.53 in funds owed to A.G. 
{¶ 10} Thompson deposited a $29,000 check drawn on his operating 
account into his client trust account on July 1, 2011.  And on July 19, 2011, he 
distributed $29,000 from his client trust account to A.G. 
{¶ 11} The parties stipulated and the board found that this conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act 
that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness), 8.4(c) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(h).  We adopt 
these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
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.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 13} Aggravating factors stipulated by the parties and found by the 
board include Thompson’s prior disciplinary offense involving the same type of 
conduct, his pattern of misconduct, and his multiple offenses.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (c), and (d).  The board also found that Thompson acted 
with a dishonest or selfish motive.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b).  In 
mitigation, the parties stipulated and the board agreed that Thompson timely made 
restitution to the client affected by his misconduct and exhibited a cooperative 
attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c) 
and (d).  The board also found that Thompson had taken the initiative to 
significantly upgrade and modify his financial-management system from the 
antiquated paper-based system that exacerbated his misconduct.  His new system 
includes PC Law accounting software and the employment of an outside 
accounting firm that can securely and remotely access and monitor his trust and 
operating accounts. 
{¶ 14} Thompson voluntarily submitted to an evaluation by the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”)0.  Though he has not been diagnosed 
with a mental disorder or substance-abuse issues, he entered into a two-year 
OLAP contract and has received counseling to help him deal with stress. 
{¶ 15} The parties stipulated that a 24-month suspension with 18 months 
stayed on the condition that upon Thompson’s return to practice law he will 
successfully comply with and complete an 18-month period of probation with a 
focus on the management of his client trust account.  Of the cases cited by the 
parties, the board found Disciplinary Counsel v. Riek, 125 Ohio St.3d 46, 2010-
Ohio-1556, 925 N.E.2d 980, to be most analogous to the facts of this case. 
{¶ 16} In Riek, we imposed an 18-month suspension with 12 months 
stayed on the condition of no further misconduct for an attorney who commingled 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
personal and client funds, paid personal expenses directly from his client trust 
account, misappropriated client funds causing overdrafts on at least four 
occasions, and then lied to a client about the reason a settlement check had been 
dishonored.  Id. at ¶ 4-8, 14.  There were no aggravating factors present, but 
mitigating factors included the absence of a prior disciplinary record, Riek’s full 
and free disclosure to the board and cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, 
and evidence of his good character apart from the charged misconduct.  Id. at 
¶ 11. 
{¶ 17} As the board notes, Thompson’s misconduct is more serious than 
that of Riek because he has previously been disciplined for the same type of 
misconduct.  The definitive steps that Thompson has taken to prevent this type of 
misconduct from occurring in the future, however, persuaded the board to adopt 
the parties’ stipulated sanction. 
{¶ 18} Having considered Thompson’s misconduct, the aggravating and 
mitigating factors present, and the sanctions we have imposed for comparable 
misconduct, we agree that a two-year suspension with 18 months stayed on 
conditions, including an 18-month period of monitored probation, is the 
appropriate sanction in this case. 
{¶ 19} Accordingly, Harold Lee Thompson is suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for two years.  The last 18 months of that suspension, however, 
will be stayed on the conditions that upon reinstatement to the practice of law, he 
serve an 18-month period of monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. 
V(9) and engage in no further misconduct.  If Thompson fails to comply with 
these conditions, the stay will be revoked and he will serve the full two-year 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to Thompson. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and 
FRENCH, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
 
O’NEILL, J., dissents and would impose a two-year suspension, all stayed 
on the condition that Thompson continue his contract with the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program for the duration of the stayed-suspension period. 
____________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Donald M. Scheetz, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
William C. Mann, for respondent. 
_________________________