Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller

Citation: 2010-Ohio-3287

Docket Number: 20092283

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-07-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3287.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-3287 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MILLER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3287.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules and the 
Rules of Professional Conduct — Indefinite license suspension. 
(No. 2009-2283 — Submitted February 17, 2010 — Decided July 20, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-050. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Wayne Donald Miller, of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0058543, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1992.  In 
June 2009, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint charging him with 
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Ohio Rules of Professional 
Conduct, and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  The alleged violations arise from 
respondent’s conduct in retaining $18,000 in client funds that he had been 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
instructed to hold in trust, failing to submit a bill to the client for services 
rendered, failing to inform the client that he did not maintain professional liability 
insurance, and failing to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation.  
Although the complaint was served by certified mail on June 19, 2009, at the 
address respondent has registered with the Supreme Court of Ohio, he failed to 
file an answer.  Therefore, in October 2009, relator moved for default pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). 
{¶ 2} The board referred the matter to a master commissioner, who 
prepared a report for the board’s review.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s findings of fact, conclusions that respondent had violated six 
disciplinary rules, seven Rules of Professional Conduct, and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), 
and recommendation that we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of 
law.  We agree that respondent committed professional misconduct as found by 
the board and that his conduct warrants an indefinite suspension. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The board found that on August 1, 2005, the grievant hired 
respondent to represent him in a civil case.  Respondent did not advise the 
grievant, at the initial consultation or during the course of his representation, that 
he did not carry professional liability insurance.  The grievant endorsed a $41,000 
check to respondent and instructed him to distribute $18,000 to the grievant’s 
girlfriend, keep $5,000 as a retainer, and hold the remaining $18,000 in trust.  
When the grievant fired respondent, he asked him to provide an accounting of his 
attorney fees and to return the $18,000 held in trust, but respondent did not 
comply. 
{¶ 4} Respondent testified that he received a copy of the grievance, and 
that he failed to respond to relator’s request for information.  He also admitted 
that he (1) did not maintain a client trust account, (2) did not execute a written fee 
agreement when he agreed to represent the grievant, and (3) deposited the 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
$41,000 he received from the grievant into his personal account and retained 
$23,000 of the money because he considered it to be “virtually earned.”  
However, respondent also acknowledged that he was entitled to receive only 
$5,000 of that money upfront. 
{¶ 5} Respondent promised to provide relator with information about the 
work he had performed in the grievant’s case.  But the summary he provided to 
relator did not itemize his billable activity by date or reflect the daily hours he 
spent on each task.  It did, however, reveal that he had charged the grievant 
$6,750 on two separate occasions to review the same documents. 
{¶ 6} When respondent failed to produce additional information he had 
promised relator, relator subpoenaed him for a second deposition.  Although he 
appeared at relator’s office the morning of the deposition, relator left before the 
deposition began. 
{¶ 7} Based upon these factual findings, the board concluded that 
respondent’s conduct before February 1, 2007, violated DR 1-102(A)(4) 
(prohibiting engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), DR 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects 
on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), DR 1-104(A) (requiring a lawyer to 
disclose to the client that the lawyer lacks professional liability insurance),1 DR 2-
106(A) (prohibiting a lawyer from charging or collecting an illegal or clearly 
excessive fee), DR 9-102(A) (requiring the preservation of the identity of client 
funds), and DR 9-102(B)(4) (requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or deliver funds 
and property that a client is entitled to receive). 
{¶ 8} The board further concluded that respondent’s conduct on or after 
February 1, 2007, violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply 
                                                 
1.  Although both the complaint and the board report indicate that respondent violated “DR 2-
104(A)” by failing to inform the client that he did not maintain professional liability insurance, we 
note that it is DR 1-104(A) that prohibits that conduct. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client), 
1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not maintain 
professional liability insurance), 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from making an 
agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 1.15(a) 
(requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients separate from the lawyer’s own 
property), 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property 
that the client is entitled to receive), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to 
cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). 
{¶ 9} We accept the board’s findings that respondent committed this 
misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} 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 
listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 11} The board found that at least five of the nine aggravating factors 
set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) are present, including (1) a dishonest or 
selfish motive, (2) lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process, (3) submission 
of false evidence, false statements, or deceptive practices during the disciplinary 
process, (4) refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, and (5) 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
failure to make restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (e), (f), (g), and (i).  In 
mitigation, the board found that respondent was admitted to the practice of law in 
1992 and has no prior disciplinary record.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). 
{¶ 12} We have imposed an indefinite suspension for similar misconduct.  
See, e.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gottehrer, 124 Ohio St.3d. 519, 2010-
Ohio-929, 924 N.E.2d 825, ¶ 17-18 (imposing an indefinite suspension for an 
attorney who neglected client matters; failed to promptly comply with reasonable 
client requests for information; made agreements for, charged, or collected illegal 
or clearly excessive fees; failed to timely deliver funds or other property to a 
client; and failed to cooperate in a disciplinary proceeding); Cuyahoga Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Wagner, 113 Ohio St.3d 158, 2007-Ohio-1253, 863 N.E.2d 164, ¶ 14-15 
(imposing an indefinite suspension for an attorney who failed to promptly refund 
unearned retainers and failed to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary 
investigation). 
{¶ 13} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, 
we adopt the board’s recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension.  
Accordingly, Wayne Donald Miller is indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law in the state of Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
BROWN, C.J., not participating. 
__________________ 
Jonathan Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Philip A. King, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________