Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Vanderburg

Citation: 2019-Ohio-4227

Docket Number: 2019-0503

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2019-10-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Vanderburg, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4227.] 
 
 
 
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. 2019-OHIO-4227 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. VANDERBURG. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Vanderburg, Slip Opinion No.  
2019-Ohio-4227.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, namely, 
engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation—One-year suspension, stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2019-0503—Submitted April 23, 2019—Decided October 17, 2019.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2018-056. 
_________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Keith Allan Vanderburg, of Independence, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0005609, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1978.  In 2018, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint with the Board of 
Professional Conduct alleging that Vanderburg had improperly converted funds 
from his law firm. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} The board considered the case on the parties’ consent-to-discipline 
agreement.  See Gov.Bar R. V(16).  In their agreement, the parties stipulated to the 
following facts. 
{¶ 3} In June 2012, attorneys at the law firm in which Vanderburg was 
working began representing a client who sold firearms and related products.  
Vanderburg did not perform any legal services for this client.  By June 2014, the 
client owed the law firm more than $27,000 for legal services.  Vanderburg knew 
of the client’s delinquency due to his status as the law firm’s managing partner.  
Because Vanderburg had an interest in firearms for personal use, he asked a law-
firm partner and the originating attorney on the client’s account to coordinate a 
purchase for him by credit against the client’s outstanding balance.  From June 2014 
to December 2017, Vanderburg purchased products from the client by applying 13 
credits against the client’s balance. 
{¶ 4} Some of Vanderburg’s law-firm partners generally knew of his 
purchase-by-credit arrangement; however, they were unaware that he was not 
reimbursing the firm for his purchases.  The parties stipulated that although 
Vanderburg had initially intended to reimburse the law firm, he failed to do so, 
resulting in his conversion of $28,184.81 from the firm.  In June 2018, Peter 
Hessler, who had become the law firm’s managing partner, discovered the 
unreimbursed credits while reviewing the client’s delinquent account.  After 
Hessler and another partner confronted Vanderburg, he admitted to the misconduct 
and fully reimbursed the law firm the next day.  The parties stipulated that none of 
the firm’s clients were harmed by Vanderburg’s actions and that he remains a 
partner in the firm. 
{¶ 5} In July 2018, Vanderburg and Hessler reported the misconduct to 
relator.  Hessler also reported it to local police but requested that no further action 
be taken. 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
{¶ 6} Based on Vanderburg’s actions, the parties stipulated that he violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  The parties also agreed to dismiss 
an alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  As an 
aggravating factor, they stipulated that he had engaged in a pattern of misconduct.  
See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3).  As mitigating factors, the parties agreed that 
Vanderburg had no prior disciplinary offenses and had made a timely and good-
faith effort at restitution, fully and freely disclosed the misconduct to the board and 
displayed a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, and had a good character 
and reputation.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (3), (4), and (5). 
{¶ 7} The board recommends that we accept the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement and suspend Vanderburg from the practice of law for one year, 
with the suspension stayed in its entirety on the conditions that he engage in no 
further misconduct and pay the costs of the board’s proceedings.  The board 
analogized Vanderburg’s misconduct to that in Disciplinary Counsel v. Grigsby, 
128 Ohio St.3d 413, 2011-Ohio-1446, 945 N.E.2d 512, and Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Markijohn, 99 Ohio St.3d 489, 2003-Ohio-4129, 794 N.E.2d 24.  In Grigsby, we 
imposed a conditionally stayed 18-month suspension on an attorney who had 
misused her employer’s credit card for personal expenses.  In Markijohn, we 
imposed a conditionally stayed six-month suspension on an attorney who had 
falsely reported to his employer that he had made required retirement-account 
payments and who had filed tax returns that included deductions for these phantom 
payments.  Both cases involved significant mitigating evidence, including self-
reporting, remorse, cooperation in the disciplinary process, payment of restitution, 
and no prior disciplinary record. 
{¶ 8} We agree that Vanderburg violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and that, in 
accord with the caselaw discussed above, a conditionally stayed one-year 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case.  We therefore adopt the parties’ 
consent-to-discipline agreement and accept the board’s recommended sanction. 
{¶ 9} Keith Allan Vanderburg is hereby suspended from the practice of law 
for one year, with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that he engage in 
no further misconduct and pay the costs of the board’s proceedings.  If Vanderburg 
fails to comply with either condition, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the 
entire one-year suspension. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and 
STEWART, JJ., concur. 
KENNEDY, J., dissents and would remand the cause to the Board of 
Professional Conduct. 
_________________ 
 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Jennifer A. Bondurant, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Tucker Ellis, L.L.P., and Harry D. Cornett Jr., for respondent. 
_________________