Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rothermel

Citation: 2004-Ohio-6559

Docket Number: 20041010

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-12-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rothermel, 104 Ohio St.3d 413, 2004-Ohio-6559.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROTHERMEL. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rothermel, 104 Ohio St.3d 413, 2004-Ohio-
6559.] 
Attorneys at law – Misconduct – Indefinite suspension – Failure to deposit client 
funds in separate account – Failure to keep accurate records of client 
funds – Engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or 
misrepresentation. 
(No. 2004-1010 — Submitted October 12, 2004 — Decided December 15, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-088. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Christian Dean Rothermel of Hamilton, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0043140, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1977.  On December 31, 1984, we suspended respondent from practice for one 
year for professional misconduct involving conversion of client trust funds, 
failure to disburse funds held on a client’s behalf, and failure to maintain the 
identity of client funds in a trust account.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel 
(1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 121, 15 OBR 272, 472 N.E.2d 1072.  Respondent did not 
immediately apply for readmission to the bar at the end of his one-year 
suspension but was eventually reinstated.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel 
(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 1215, 716 N.E.2d 712. 
{¶ 2} On October 6, 2003, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged 
that respondent had again violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the 
cause and, based on the parties’ comprehensive stipulations and other evidence, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
made findings of misconduct and a recommendation, all of which the board 
adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} As stipulated, the board found that around March 1, 2001, 
respondent represented an estranged wife in the administration of her deceased 
husband’s estate.  The husband, who had died intestate, left an estate containing a 
$518.57 paycheck and debts of approximately $23,000, rendering the estate 
insolvent.  On April 30, 2001, respondent deposited the $518.57 check into his 
client trust account. 
{¶ 4} Respondent’s client was the sole beneficiary of her husband’s life-
insurance policy, which had a death benefit of $31,707.10.  On July 30, 2001, the 
client and respondent agreed in writing that respondent would reimburse relatives 
who had advanced money for her husband’s funeral and burial expenses, pay 
decedent’s outstanding medical bills, and distribute the remaining insurance 
proceeds based on a formula that distributed one-half of the net proceeds to the 
client and one-half to her husband’s children. 
{¶ 5} The client endorsed the life-insurance check, and on July 31, 2001, 
respondent deposited the check into his client trust account.  Between August 1, 
2001, and August 13, 2001, respondent made eight disbursements totaling 
$15,941.74 from the trust account, purportedly on behalf of the decedent’s estate, 
leaving a balance of $16,283.93.  From the date of the last check until February 
10, 2003, respondent failed to maintain sufficient funds in his trust account to 
safeguard the remaining $16,283.93.  And between August 2001 and June 2002, 
respondent wrote 15 checks to himself against the trust account.  These checks, 
totaling $12,980, were used for purposes unrelated to the decedent’s estate.  
Respondent also failed to disburse additional insurance proceeds until February 
2003, when sufficient funds were finally available in his client trust account. 
January Term, 2004 
3 
 
{¶ 6} Throughout the times relevant to the complaint, respondent failed 
to maintain complete records of funds in his client trust account and was unable to 
render appropriate accounts.  As an example, respondent deposited $30,800 into 
the account in February 2003, $27,300 of which came from unidentified sources.  
On February 17, 2003, respondent distributed from his trust account $12,514.45 
to his client and others; however, as of the hearing date, respondent had not paid 
at least $3,000 in accordance with his and his client’s July 30, 2001 agreement. 
{¶ 7} In addition to the stipulated facts, the board found that respondent 
did not advise his client or even research the question of whether she was legally 
obligated to pay her estranged husband’s debts from the life-insurance proceeds.  
Respondent instead deferred to the client’s decision to deposit the insurance 
proceeds in his trust account, to reimburse relatives for the funeral and burial 
expenses they had paid, and to distribute one-half of any remaining insurance 
proceeds to his client and one-half to the decedent’s surviving children.  
Respondent claims that it was also his client’s idea to negotiate with medical 
providers for a reduction of the decedent’s medical expenses and then to divide 
the savings by thirds — one-third to herself, one-third to the decedent’s children, 
and one-third to respondent for legal fees. 
{¶ 8} As for his withdrawal of $12,980 from the client trust account, 
respondent explained that he “borrowed” the money, making a series of 15 
withdrawals over ten months and using the money to pay his personal office and 
living expenses.  The board found that respondent did not have his client’s 
consent to this arrangement and allowed the client to believe that leaving her 
money in his trust account to earn “approximately 5 percent” interest was a good 
investment.  Respondent did not document his loan, specify terms for repayment 
or interest, or give the client security against loss.  He also did not advise her of 
their conflicting interests or suggest that she should seek other counsel to protect 
her interests. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 9} The client’s mother-in-law filed the original grievance against 
respondent, from which the board concluded that at least one of the decedent’s 
relatives was confused as to whom respondent represented.  Respondent testified 
that he represented only the widow, although he discussed the work he was doing 
on the widow’s behalf with others.  This arrangement raised for the board the 
issue of a conflict of interest, in addition to his financial self-dealing, but neither 
conflict had been charged against respondent. 
{¶ 10} Quoting the panel’s report, the board concluded: 
{¶ 11} “Respondent, in effect and in fact, charged his client a fee based on 
a percentage of supposed savings for convincing creditors with doubtful claims 
against his client to accept from his client payment less than the decedent owed 
them.  In the meantime while negotiations were supposedly ongoing over a nearly 
two year period, Respondent systematically drained his client’s funds from his 
trust account using those funds for his own purposes only. 
{¶ 12} “Respondent eventually restored the funds largely with deposits of 
unknown origin.  Respondent claims that he has been unable to find his client and 
therefore has not delivered her money to her although he has drawn trust account 
checks payable to her.  There is no independent evidence in the record 
demonstrating funds on deposit to honor the checks drawn on that account.  No 
report of unclaimed funds has been made.” 
{¶ 13} Respondent admitted and the board found that respondent had 
violated DR 9-102(A) (requiring an attorney to deposit client’s funds in a separate 
identifiable bank account) and 9-102(B)(3) (requiring an attorney to maintain 
complete records of client’s property and to render appropriate accounts) by 
failing to maintain client funds in a client trust account until properly disbursed.  
Respondent also admitted and the board found that he had violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) 
(barring 
conduct 
involving 
fraud, 
deceit, 
dishonesty, 
or 
January Term, 2004 
5 
 
misrepresentation) by removing funds belonging to a client from a client trust 
account and using those funds for his own purpose. 
Sanction 
{¶ 14} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the mitigating and aggravating factors 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 a mitigating factor, the board found, consistent with the 
parties’ stipulations, that respondent had cooperated in the disciplinary process.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d).  Respondent also reported that he had restored 
missing funds to his client trust account and intended to repay his client with 
interest, presenting checks for this purpose at the panel hearing.  The board 
additionally accepted four letters from clients and associates who praised 
respondent’s skills as a practitioner. 
{¶ 15} To the board, however, the aggravating factors far outweighed 
mitigating factors.  In aggravation, the board found that respondent had a prior 
record of discipline that, although occurring 20 years ago, involved the same 
misconduct as he had committed in this case.  The board further found a dishonest 
and selfish motive inasmuch as respondent converted his client’s money to pay 
his personal bills.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a) and (b). 
{¶ 16} Respondent did acknowledge that his actions were wrong; 
however, the board found that he had also attempted to excuse or justify them by 
suggesting that his repeated and unauthorized use of his client’s funds served her 
wish to earn interest pending the estate administration.  Respondent also claimed 
that he “cured” his misconduct by paying his client with interest, saving her 
money by negotiating a reduction in the medical bills, and ultimately not charging 
for legal fees.  Respondent also defended his delay in paying his client, claiming 
that he did not know where she lived. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 17} The board found that respondent’s explanations were unconvincing 
and indicated a lack of remorse, and it was skeptical of respondent’s commitment 
to make restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(i).  Although respondent denied 
that he knew of the grievance against him when he began making the 
disbursements from his trust account, the board found that the grievance filing 
date coincided suspiciously with creditors’ acceptance of the proposed reductions 
and deposits in respondent’s client trust account. 
{¶ 18} Relator recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law.  Arguing that his admitted dishonesty and violation of 
DR 1-102(A)(4) was a one-time occurrence and not particularly egregious 
because he was carrying out his client’s wishes and was in the process of repaying 
“borrowed” funds, respondent suggested a two-year suspension with one year 
stayed.  The board, citing the rule that absent significant mitigation evidence, 
disbarment is the sanction for an attorney’s misappropriation of a client’s funds, 
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio St.3d 490, 2002-Ohio-2490, 769 N.E.2d 
816, ¶ 15, recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred.  Respondent 
objects to this recommendation. 
{¶ 19} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 9-102(A), 9-
102(B)(3), and 1-102(A)(4) as found by the board.  We reject the board’s 
recommended sanction, however, and find an indefinite suspension appropriate. 
{¶ 20} In determining the appropriate sanction for an attorney’s 
misconduct, we consider “ ‘the duties violated, the actual injury caused, the 
lawyer’s mental state, the existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, 
and sanctions imposed in similar cases.’ ”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Connors, 97 
Ohio St.3d 479, 2002-Ohio-6722, 780 N.E.2d 567, ¶ 16, quoting Stark Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  
Here, respondent violated his duties to clients and to the public.  DR 9-102(A), 9-
January Term, 2004 
7 
 
102(B)(3), and 1-102(A)(4).  He alleges no mental illness or substance abuse and, 
as the board found, there are few extenuating circumstances of record. 
{¶ 21} Respondent has, however, admitted his misconduct with respect to 
this one client, and we do not share the board’s suspicions about his attempts to 
make restitution.  Respondent has offered to pay for wrongdoing about which his 
client has not complained, an offer that lends some credence to his claim that the 
client wanted to philanthropically pay her husband’s bills and share the insurance 
proceeds with his children, even though this plan was not in her financial 
interests.  Moreover, from respondent’s forthright and conciliatory oral argument 
before this court, we believe that he may in the future regain the moral compass 
necessary to competently and ethically practice law, evidence that distinguishes 
this case from any in which we have ordered disbarment. 
{¶ 22} Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Edwin W. Patterson III, Bar Counsel; Rice & Diedrichs, L.L.P., and James 
K. Rice; Heekin & Heekin and Christopher R. Heekin, for relator. 
 
Christian Dean Rothermel, pro se. 
________________________