Case Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Wilson

Citation: 2010-Ohio-4937

Docket Number: 20100717

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-10-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Wilson, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-4937.] 
 
 
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-4937 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. WILSON, A.K.A. CAMP. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Wilson,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-4937.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Restitution ordered — Indefinite license 
suspension. 
(No. 2010-0717 — Submitted June 9, 2010 — Decided October 14, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-029. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In June 2009, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a three-count 
amended complaint charging respondent, Y. Nicole Wilson, Attorney Registration 
No. 0075975, whose last known address is Dayton, Ohio, with multiple violations 
of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  We note, 
however, that this attorney number is registered to Y. Nicole Camp, who was 
admitted to the practice of law in 2003 under the name Yvonne Nicole Wilson.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
We conclude that Y. Nicole Wilson and Y. Nicole Camp are the same person 
because (1) the complaint bears the attorney registration number of Y. Nicole 
Camp, (2) relator has submitted affidavits from two grievants stating that Y. 
Nicole Wilson is also known as Y. Nicole Camp, (3) on February 4, 2008, 
Yvonne Nicole Wilson filed a change of name with the Office of Attorney 
Services, stating that she had changed her name to Y. Nicole Camp, and (4) the 
addresses on file with Attorney Services match those used by relator in its efforts 
to obtain service on respondent. 
{¶ 2} Relator’s three-count amended complaint charged respondent with 
issuing a bad trust-account check to a client after agreeing to refund his retainer, 
failing to act with reasonable diligence or to provide competent representation in 
two other client matters, and failing to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary 
investigations. 
{¶ 3} Although the board attempted to serve relator’s amended 
complaint on respondent via certified mail at her last known home and business 
addresses, the documents were returned by the postal service as undeliverable.  
On July 22, 2009, the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted service on 
respondent’s behalf  in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Because 
respondent failed to file an answer, relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar 
R. V(6)(F).  And on November 3, 2009, we suspended respondent’s license to 
practice law for her failure to register for the 2009/2011 biennium. 
{¶ 4} 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 of law, and recommendation that we 
indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law.  Rejecting relator’s 
recommended sanction of permanent disbarment, the board also recommends that 
we indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to practice law. 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
{¶ 5} We agree that respondent committed professional misconduct as 
found by the board and that her conduct warrants an indefinite suspension. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 6} With respect to Count I, the board found that respondent had 
informed relator that she would refund the retainer to a grievant who was 
dissatisfied with her representation in a bankruptcy proceeding.  However, the 
bank returned for insufficient funds the $450 check she issued to the client from 
her trust account.  Respondent failed to respond to relator’s repeated requests for a 
meeting to discuss the returned check and failed to honor a request that she appear 
before a scheduled meeting of the grievance committee. 
{¶ 7} Based upon these findings, the board found that respondent had 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 (a) (requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients in a 
trust account separate from the lawyer’s personal funds and maintain a record of 
the funds held for each client), 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver 
funds or other property that the client is entitled to receive), 8.1(b) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a 
disciplinary authority), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate 
with a disciplinary investigation).  But concluding that the record did not support 
relator’s allegation that respondent had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), the board recommends dismissal of that alleged violation. 
{¶ 8} We agree that respondent’s conduct in issuing a client refund 
check from her trust account that was returned by the bank for insufficient funds 
clearly and convincingly demonstrates that respondent failed to maintain accurate 
records of those funds and that she failed to promptly deliver funds that the client 
was entitled to receive.  We also agree that by failing to respond to relator’s 
repeated attempts to communicate with her about this grievance and failing to file 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
an answer in this disciplinary proceeding, respondent has violated Prof.Cond.R. 
8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  But because there is no evidence in the record to 
demonstrate that the overdraft of respondent’s trust account was the result of 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, rather than an honest accounting 
mistake, we accept the board’s recommendation to dismiss the alleged violation 
of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c). 
Count II 
{¶ 9} Count II arises from respondent’s agreement to represent a 
husband and wife in a custody matter involving their grandson.  Respondent did 
not respond to relator’s repeated attempts to obtain information regarding this 
grievance.  Based upon these factual findings, the board concluded that 
respondent’s failure to respond to relator’s attempts to inquire about this 
grievance violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  But because 
relator failed to submit sworn or certified evidence from the grievants, in 
accordance with our decision in Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 104 Ohio St.3d 448, 
2004-Ohio-6560, 820 N.E.2d 318, the board recommends that we dismiss the 
alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent 
representation to a client) and 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable 
diligence in representing a client). 
{¶ 10} We accept the board’s findings of fact, agree that respondent’s 
conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), and dismiss the 
alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 and 1.3 set forth in Count II of the 
amended complaint as unsupported by the evidence. 
Count III 
{¶ 11} Count III involves a grievance filed by another husband and wife 
who had retained respondent to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  Although respondent 
commenced the clients’ bankruptcy proceeding, the board found that she had 
failed to stop the improper garnishment of the husband’s paycheck.  And when 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
the clients sent respondent documents that she had instructed them to obtain, the 
envelope was returned by the post office marked “undeliverable.” Based upon 
these findings, the board concluded that respondent had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 
and 1.3  We accept these findings of fact and misconduct. 
{¶ 12} The board also found that “Relator’s investigator has attempted to 
contact Respondent regarding this grievance on two occasions, but the first 
attempt to contact her was returned as ‘not deliverable as addressed’ and 
Respondent has failed to respond to the second request.”  While relator alleges 
these facts in its complaint, the affidavits submitted by relator do not mention 
these specific attempts to communicate with respondent.  Therefore, we reject 
these findings. 
{¶ 13} Nonetheless, because we find that the record contains clear and 
convincing evidence that respondent has not responded to relator’s repeated 
attempts to obtain information regarding this grievance and has not filed an 
answer in this proceeding, we accept the board’s findings that respondent has 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) with regard to this count. 
Sanction 
{¶ 14} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
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.   
{¶ 15} Respondent has breached her duties to her clients by failing to 
maintain accurate records of the funds held in her client trust account, failing to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
promptly deliver funds that a client was entitled to receive, and failing to provide 
diligent and competent legal representation to another client.  Moreover, she has 
breached her duty to the public and legal profession by failing to participate in the 
disciplinary process. 
{¶ 16} The master commissioner and 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 pattern of misconduct, (2) multiple offenses, (3) lack of 
cooperation in the disciplinary process, (4) refusal to acknowledge the wrongful 
nature of her conduct, and (5) failure to make restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), (g), and (i).  In mitigation, the board found only that 
respondent has no prior disciplinary record.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). 
{¶ 17} Based upon these findings, the master commissioner recommended 
that respondent’s law license be indefinitely suspended.  The board adopted this 
recommendation. 
{¶ 18} An indefinite suspension is an appropriate sanction for a lawyer 
who has violated the standards of professional competence, diligence, and 
integrity by failing to maintain accurate records of the funds held in her client 
trust account, failing to promptly deliver funds that a client was entitled to 
receive, failing to provide diligent and competent legal representation her clients, 
and failing to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation.  See Columbus 
Bar Assn. v. Torian, 106 Ohio St.3d 14, 2005-Ohio-3216, 829 N.E.2d 1210, at ¶ 
17 ("As we have consistently held, neglect of legal matters and the failure to 
cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation warrant an indefinite 
suspension from the practice of law"); Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Verbiski (1999), 86 
Ohio St.3d 627, 628, 716 N.E.2d 702 (indefinitely suspending an attorney for 
neglecting legal matters, including failure to perfect service of a divorce 
complaint, failing to timely refund the client’s retainer, and failing to cooperate in 
the resulting disciplinary investigation). 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
{¶ 19} 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, Y. Nicole Wilson, also known as Y. Nicole Camp, is indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio.  A condition of any 
possible reinstatement is the payment of restitution of $450 to the client in Count 
I, with interest at the statutory rate from the date of suspension.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Richard L. Carr Jr., for relator. 
______________________