Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Kiesling

Citation: 2010-Ohio-1555

Docket Number: 20092037

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-04-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Kiesling, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1555.] 
 
 
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-1555 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. KIESLING. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Kiesling,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1555.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Multiple disciplinary violations — Disbarment. 
(No. 2009-2037 ⎯ Submitted January 13, 2010 ⎯ Decided April 12, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-057. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Charles Mark Kiesling, Attorney Registration No. 
0019576, whose last registered address is in Columbus, was admitted to the 
practice of law in Ohio in 1980. 
{¶ 2} From July 2007 through May 2009, relator, Columbus Bar 
Association, received eight grievances against respondent.  Relator’s original 
complaint encompassed three counts arising from a grievance filed by a client 
regarding respondent’s neglect of an estate, refusal to return business records, and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
failure to advise the client to file city income tax returns, and a fourth count 
regarding respondent’s conviction for unlawful accounting practices. 
{¶ 3} In January 2009, relator amended its complaint, adding four 
additional counts:  one arising from a grievance filed by a second client alleging 
commingling and failure to safeguard client property, one alleging respondent’s 
abandonment of his law practice, one arising from a grievance filed by a third 
client and alleging neglect and misuse of trust funds belonging to that client’s 
company, and one alleging respondent’s failure to cooperate in the disciplinary 
process.  In June 2009, relator filed a second amended complaint to include an 
additional count of defalcation of company funds belonging to a company owned 
by a fourth client. 
{¶ 4} When attempts to serve the complaint, amended complaint, and 
second amended complaint on respondent by certified and regular mail at 
numerous addresses failed, relator served them on the Clerk of this court in 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Because respondent failed to file an 
answer to any of the complaints, relator moved for a default judgment on 
September 23, 2009. 
{¶ 5} In support of its default motion, relator submitted the following 
evidence:  (1) an affidavit of Bruce A. Campbell, bar counsel for the Columbus 
Bar Association, with supporting documentation, (2) respondent’s September 24, 
2007 deposition transcript, (3) respondent’s January 7, 2009 deposition transcript, 
(4) an April 7, 2009 deposition transcript demonstrating respondent’s failure to 
appear, (5) an affidavit of the first client with supporting documentation, (6) a 
certified copy of judgment entry of respondent’s conviction for unlawful 
accounting practices in the Bellefontaine Municipal Court, (7) an affidavit of the 
second client with supporting documentation, (8) an affidavit of the third client 
with supporting documentation, (9) an affidavit of respondent’s landlord with 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
supporting documentation, and (10) an affidavit of the fourth client with 
supporting documentation. 
{¶ 6} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
referred the default motion to a master commissioner, who prepared a report and 
recommendation for the board’s consideration.  The board adopted the master 
commissioner’s findings that relator had submitted sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that respondent had violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and VI(1)(D), that 
his conduct prior to February 1, 2007, violated seven rules of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility, and that his conduct on or after February 11, 2007, 
violated 11 Rules of Professional Conduct.  Accordingly, the board adopted the 
master commissioner’s recommendation that this court permanently disbar 
respondent from practicing law in the state of Ohio.  For the reasons that follow, 
we find that respondent committed professional misconduct and hold that 
disbarment is appropriate. 
Misconduct 
Count One – Client #1’s Estate Grievance 
{¶ 7} Client #1 was the administrator of the estate of her mother, who 
died on January 3, 1999.  In February 1999, client #1 retained respondent to 
represent the estate, and he assumed responsibility for probating the decedent’s 
will and preparing and filing of estate tax returns.  Although respondent filed an 
application to probate the will in November 2002, over the course of the 
following two years he failed to respond to his client’s inquiries regarding the 
status of the probate matter. 
{¶ 8} In January 2005, respondent notified his client that the estate owed 
the Ohio Department of Taxation estate taxes of $9,817.97.  Although his client 
promptly provided a check for the taxes, as well as a $950 check for legal 
services, respondent waited approximately six months to file the estate tax return.  
In November 2005, the Ohio Department of Taxation sent respondent a letter 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
notifying him of penalties and interest assessed against the estate and offering the 
opportunity to demonstrate reasonable cause for the late filing.  However, 
respondent did not notify his client of the assessment or otherwise respond to the 
letter.  The client learned of the assessment, including a $2,454.49 penalty and a 
$3,785.72 interest charge, in November 2006, and paid it. 
{¶ 9} Additionally, in December 2006, the client received and entrusted 
to respondent a letter and documents from National City Bank regarding the 
decedent’s brokerage account that required action.  Respondent failed to respond 
to the bank and failed to respond to his client’s phone calls regarding the tax and 
bank matters. 
{¶ 10} Because the legal fees necessary to pursue her claim of $6,240.21 
against respondent were prohibitive, the client filed a complaint in small-claims 
court and obtained a default judgment of $3,000 (the maximum award permitted 
in that court), which respondent has failed to pay. 
{¶ 11} Because respondent neglected his client’s mother’s estate, resulting 
in damages to his client in excess of $6,000, the board found, and we agree, that 
he violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting in conduct adversely reflecting on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting neglect of an entrusted 
legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (prohibiting intentional failure to seek the lawful 
objectives of his clients), and 7-101(A)(3) (prohibiting intentionally prejudicing 
or damaging a client in the course of representation). 
Count Two – Client #1’s Records 
{¶ 12} For a number of years, respondent prepared tax returns for client 
#1, her late husband, and his businesses and maintained those tax returns and 
worksheets in his possession.  In January 2007, client #1 sent respondent a letter 
requesting all of the tax records for her, her husband, and her husband’s 
businesses.  Despite numerous requests from his client and the attorneys she 
retained to finalize the estates of her mother and husband, respondent produced 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
only several years of the most recent personal tax returns.  Although he had been 
notified of pending deadlines associated with the sale and valuation of several of 
the husband’s businesses, at the time the complaint was filed, respondent had not 
produced any of the business records or the remaining personal records. 
{¶ 13} Based upon the foregoing conduct that occurred before February 1, 
2007, the board found, and we agree, that he violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 2-
110(A)(2) (prohibiting withdrawal from employment without taking steps to 
protect the client’s interests), 7-101(A)(3), and  9-102(B)(4) (requiring prompt 
delivery to client of papers and funds belonging to client). 
{¶ 14} With respect to respondent’s conduct that occurred on and after 
February 1, 2007, the board found, and we agree, that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.4(a)(2) (requiring reasonable consultation with a client about the means by 
which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished),  1.4(a)(4) (requiring prompt 
response to reasonable requests for information from the client), and 1.15(d) 
(requiring prompt delivery to the client of any funds or other property that the 
client is entitled to receive). 
Count Three – Preparation of Client #1’s Tax Returns 
{¶ 15} Respondent prepared personal income tax returns for client #1 and 
her husband in 1998 and 1999.  In each of those years, he determined that they 
owed no taxes to the city of Columbus and so advised them.  But in January 2005, 
the city of Columbus Division of Income Tax sued client #1 and her husband for 
failing to pay income taxes in those years.  As a result of respondent’s advice, 
they incurred interest charges on the unpaid taxes. 
{¶ 16} The board found, and we agree, that based upon these facts 
respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(3). 
Count Four – CPA License Revocation 
{¶ 17} The board found that respondent obtained his Ohio certified public 
accountant (“CPA”) certificate on October 7, 1985, and that on June 11, 2004, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Accountancy Board of Ohio revoked that certificate, upon its determination that 
he had conducted an audit of the Logan County Red Cross while his license was 
expired.  The board further found that on May 8, 2007, the Bellefontaine 
Municipal Court found respondent guilty of unlawful accounting practices in 
violation of R.C. 4701.14(G), a first-degree misdemeanor, upon its determination 
that respondent had acquired an unrelated public accounting firm and was 
illegally doing business under the name of that firm using an expired CPA license.  
Based upon these findings, the board found that respondent’s conduct prior to 
February 1, 2007, violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (forbidding illegal conduct involving 
moral turpitude) and 1-102(A)(6) and that his conduct on or after that date 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (forbidding acts that reflect adversely on the 
lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) and 8.4(h) (forbidding conduct that adversely 
reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
{¶ 18} Although it is not clear from the record how relator discovered that 
respondent’s Ohio CPA certificate had been revoked, it appears that in May 2007, 
a Bellefontaine Municipal Court judge notified disciplinary counsel that 
respondent had been convicted of unlawful accounting practices. 
{¶ 19} The record contains a certified copy of the judgment entry of 
respondent’s conviction for unlawful accounting practices in violation of R.C. 
4701.14(G), which generally prohibits a business organization from holding itself 
out to the public as being composed of or employing “accountants” or “auditors” 
by use of either or both of those words on any sign, card, or letterhead, in any 
advertisement or directory, or otherwise, unless the majority of its partners or 
owners hold a CPA certificate.  However, that judgment entry does not state any 
of the facts supporting respondent’s conviction or the facts leading to the 
revocation of his CPA certificate. 
{¶ 20} At his September 24, 2007 deposition, respondent testified that he 
obtained his CPA license in 1984 and that it was revoked in 2002.  He further 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
testified that sometime after he lost his CPA certificate, he closed a branch 
accounting office that he had acquired in Bellefontaine but neglected to remove 
the signage.  He explained that that failure resulted in the charge of unlawful 
accounting practices, which he believed to be a strict-liability offense, and to 
which he pleaded no contest. 
{¶ 21} In light of respondent’s testimony regarding the circumstances of 
his conviction and relator’s failure to submit any sworn or certified evidence to 
prove the facts underlying either the license revocation or the conviction for 
unlawful accounting practices, as required by Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1)(b), we 
cannot say that clear and convincing evidence supports the board’s findings with 
respect to this count.  See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(J).  We therefore reject the board’s 
factual findings and conclusions of law with respect to count four.  Ordinarily, we 
would remand this count to the board for further proceedings.  See Dayton Bar 
Assn. v. Sebree, 104 Ohio St.3d 448, 2004-Ohio-6560, 820 N.E.2d 318.  
However, because we are imposing the sanction of permanent disbarment for the 
remaining counts against respondent, we hereby dismiss count four. 
Count Five – Defalcation from Client #2’s Trust Fund 
{¶ 22} Respondent represented client #2, who was engaged in business 
under a company name, for a number of years.  In early 2008, as the result of a 
business deal, respondent received in trust $80,000 belonging to his client.  In 
February 2008, respondent contacted his client to ask if he could borrow $30,000 
of those trust funds.  When the client told respondent he would think about a loan, 
respondent revealed that he had already taken the $30,000 out of trust without the 
client’s authorization and used it for his personal benefit. 
{¶ 23} Respondent pledged to return the money by the end of February, 
and from May to August 2008, he made payments to his client totaling $9,000.  
When the client pressed him for the remainder of the money, respondent sent a 
check for $22,853.82, but the bank returned it for insufficient funds.  After 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
respondent ignored his client’s letter demanding that he make good on the check, 
the client filed a report with the Columbus Police Department. 
{¶ 24} Respondent did not provide his client with any written evidence of 
the “loan.”   He did not advise his client that there was a conflict of interest 
regarding the lawyer/client relationship, nor did he advise him to seek 
independent counsel for advice regarding the “loan.”  At the time relator filed its 
complaint, respondent had not personally paid any of the balance owing to his 
client, although an unidentified business associate of respondent had paid a 
substantial portion of the obligation. 
{¶ 25} We adopt these findings of fact and agree with the board’s 
determination that in handling client #2’s matter, respondent violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2), 1.7(b) (prohibiting acceptance or continuation of 
representation of a client creating a conflict of interest), 1.8(a) (prohibiting 
entering into a business transaction with a client), 1.15(a) (forbidding 
commingling), 1.15(d), 8.4(b), 8.4(c) (forbidding conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(h). 
Count Six – Defalcation from Client #3’s Family and Client #3’s Business 
{¶ 26} Respondent represented a trucking company owned by client #3’s 
family that does business in multiple states.  Respondent held payroll funds and 
other assets belonging to the business in his trust account and was responsible for 
disbursing those assets to various taxing authorities for employment taxes and 
other obligations, including but not limited to the Internal Revenue Service and 
the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.  From 2005 through 2008, respondent 
failed to hold some or all of those funds in trust and failed to disburse those funds 
to various taxing authorities as directed by his clients, while falsely leading them 
to believe that he had properly held and disbursed the funds. 
{¶ 27} As a result of respondent’s actions, the company’s workers’ 
compensation premiums have increased, and the company accumulated back 
January Term, 2010 
9 
 
taxes, penalties, and late fees in excess of $100,000.  Respondent has failed to 
account to his clients for funds he received or disbursed on their behalf and has 
purloined and used some or all of those funds for his own purposes without 
informing his clients.  He has not responded to his clients’ numerous phone calls 
and has not been at his office when they attempted to retrieve their documents.  
As a result of respondent’s actions, client #3 has filed a criminal complaint with 
the Columbus Police Department. 
{¶ 28} Based upon these findings of fact, the board determined, and we 
agree, that respondent’s conduct before February 1, 2007, violated DR 1-
102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4) . 
{¶ 29} With regard to respondent’s conduct occurring on and after 
February 1, 2007, the board determined, and we agree, that respondent violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2), 1.15(a)(2) (requiring specified records for each client on 
whose behalf funds are held), 1.15(d), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h). 
Count Seven – Defalcation from Client #4 and Client #4’s Business 
{¶ 30} In his representation of a business owned by client #4, respondent 
was entrusted to hold the business’s payroll funds in trust and disburse them to 
various taxing authorities for employment and other tax obligations.  However, 
from 2004 through 2008, respondent failed to hold some or all of those funds in 
trust and failed to disburse the funds as directed by his clients.  He falsely led his 
clients to believe that he had properly held and disbursed the funds.  Respondent 
also made false statements inflating his client’s payroll obligations.  After 
receiving the inflated amounts and making some legitimate distributions, 
respondent retained the excess money – more than $52,000 – for himself.  As a 
result of respondent’s failure to properly file and pay these tax obligations, his 
client faces liability for $340,000 in back taxes, penalties, and interest charges. 
{¶ 31} Respondent ignored client #4’s numerous attempts to contact him, 
made no accounting to his clients regarding the funds he received on their behalf 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
or the disposition of those funds, and has failed to return documents sent to him 
by his clients and governmental authorities on their behalf.  Consequently, client 
#4 has filed a criminal complaint against respondent. 
{¶ 32} In sum, respondent accepted client funds in trust, failed to disburse 
those funds as directed by his clients, falsely led his clients to believe that he had 
properly held and disbursed those funds, falsely inflated his clients’ payroll 
obligations and retained the excess money, failed to account to his clients for the 
funds received, held, and disbursed on their behalf, and failed to return client 
documents.  Therefore, the board found, and we agree, that his conduct before 
February 1, 2007, violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-
101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4). 
{¶ 33} With respect to his conduct on and after February 1, 2007, the 
board found, and we agree, that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(A)(2), 
1.15(a)(2), 1.15(d), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h). 
Count Eight – Abandonment of Office and Clients 
{¶ 34} Prior to October 2008, respondent abandoned his law office.  Since 
that time, respondent has not regularly attended to his mail, returned calls or other 
communications from clients, or otherwise taken steps to protect the interests of 
his clients. 
{¶ 35} Respondent gave his landlord a check for $1,300 representing past-
due rent, but the bank returned the check for insufficient funds.  Despite 
respondent’s assurances that he would make the check good by October 1, 2008, 
he did not do so.  In January 2009, respondent paid his landlord to gain access to 
his office for a short period of time.  When that time expired, he presented another 
check for continued access, but that check was returned for insufficient funds.  
Respondent has been locked out of his office since that time. 
{¶ 36} In abandoning his office, respondent has left behind a massive 
number of files and piles of unfiled documents and correspondence, as well as 
January Term, 2010 
11 
 
computers, copiers, printers, law books, and personal effects.  Respondent has not 
provided any means for clients or others to receive information about legal 
matters entrusted to him.  Throughout these disciplinary proceedings, the address 
listed in respondent’s registration with the Supreme Court of Ohio has been that 
of his abandoned office. 
{¶ 37} Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the board determined, 
and we agree, that respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2), 1.15(d), 8.4(b), and 
8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(D) (requiring attorneys to keep the Supreme Court 
Registration Office apprised of their current addresses). 
Count Nine – Failure to Cooperate in Investigation and Provide Records 
{¶ 38} At each step of the disciplinary process, relator has given 
respondent notices of all grievances by certified and regular mail to his 
registration address and to other address that relator discovered during the 
disciplinary proceedings.  Relator has demanded written responses to each of 
these grievances.  However, the only written responses relator received were a 
short letter dated March 14, 2007, that superficially addressed client #1’s 
grievances and a letter dated September 3, 2007, briefly discussing the matter of  
respondent’s CPA license. 
{¶ 39} In September 2007, relator served respondent with a subpoena 
duces tecum for a deposition regarding the client #1 and CPA license matters.  
During that deposition, respondent promised to provide certain documents to 
relator.  However, respondent has never produced all of the promised documents. 
{¶ 40} Relator attempted to serve the complaint, amended complaint, and 
second amended complaint on respondent by certified and regular mail at 
numerous addresses and ultimately served them on the clerk of this court in 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Respondent failed to file an answer. 
{¶ 41} In December 2008, before filing the amended complaint, relator 
served a second subpoena duces tecum on respondent for a January 7, 2009 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
deposition.  Despite having had at least two weeks’ notice of that deposition, 
respondent filed a motion for a stay the day before the deposition.  Because the 
board did not rule upon the motion before the appointed time for the deposition, 
the deposition convened as scheduled.  Respondent appeared and gave some 
information about his personal and office situation as well as the whereabouts of 
various files and records.  He also promised to provide items that relator 
demanded in the subpoena duces tecum. 
{¶ 42} When respondent indicated that he wished to obtain counsel and 
continue the deposition to early February, relator agreed.  Relator also agreed to a 
later continuance of the deposition until April 7, 2009, but respondent failed to 
appear.  Relator made a record of his nonappearance. 
{¶ 43} Based upon the foregoing, the board found, and we agree, that 
respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting failure to disclose a material 
fact or knowing failure to respond in connection with a disciplinary matter) and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (imposing a duty to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). 
Sanction 
{¶ 44} The 
relator, 
master 
commissioner, 
and 
board 
have 
all 
recommended the sanction of permanent disbarment.  When imposing sanctions 
for attorney misconduct, we consider relevant factors, including the ethical duties 
that the lawyer violated and 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 BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  We are 
ever mindful that the primary purpose of the disciplinary process is not to punish 
the offender but to protect the public from lawyers who are unworthy of the trust 
and confidence essential to the attorney-client relationship.  Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Agopian, 112 Ohio St.3d 103, 2006-Ohio-6510, 858 N.E.2d 368. 
January Term, 2010 
13 
 
{¶ 45} Here, the board found that there are no known mitigating factors 
and that at least six of the nine aggravating factors set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1) are present, including that respondent engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct involving multiple offenses and caused harm to his clients.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c),(d), and (h).  Respondent failed to cooperate in the 
disciplinary process, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, 
and failed to make restitution to his victims.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e), (g), 
and (i). 
{¶ 46} Respondent has neglected client matters, failed to seek the lawful 
objectives of his clients, failed to consult with and respond to reasonable requests 
for information from his clients, and failed to promptly deliver client funds and 
other property that his clients were entitled to receive.  He has engaged in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation and misappropriated 
substantial funds from multiple clients.  Respondent’s repeated dishonesty and 
failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process demonstrate that he is unfit to 
practice law.  The presumptive disciplinary sanction for respondent’s conduct is 
disbarment, and this sanction is appropriate here.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Jones, 112 Ohio St.3d 46, 2006-Ohio-6367, 857 N.E.2d 1221, ¶ 22 
(presumptive sanction for pattern of misconduct involving dishonesty, 
misappropriation, and lack of cooperation in disciplinary proceedings is 
disbarment); Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fernandez, 99 Ohio St.3d 426, 2003-Ohio-
4078, 793 N.E.2d 434, ¶ 9 (“The presumptive sanction for misappropriation of 
client funds is disbarment”); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 102 Ohio St.3d 264, 
2004-Ohio-2683, 809 N.E.2d 1113, ¶ 15 (an attorney’s “persistent neglect of his 
clients’ interests, failure to perform as promised, failures to account for his 
clients’ money, and lack of any participation in the disciplinary proceedings” 
warrant  disbarment); Disciplinary Counsel v. Wherry (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 584, 
587, 722 N.E.2d 515 (“The appropriate sanction when a lawyer knowingly 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
 
converts funds for the lawyer’s benefit is disbarment”).  Therefore, we accept the 
board’s recommendation.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently 
disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J.,1 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Tyack, Blackmore & Liston Co., L.P.A., and Margaret L. Blackmore;  and 
Bruce Campbell, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar Counsel, for 
relator. 
______________________ 
                                                 
1.  The late Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer participated in the deliberations in, and the final 
resolution of, this case prior to his death.