Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Reed

Citation: 2023-Ohio-1420

Docket Number: 2022-0955

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2023-05-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Reed, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1420.] 
 
                                                                
 
 
 
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. 2023-OHIO-1420 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. REED. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Reed, Slip Opinion No.  
2023-Ohio-1420.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness 
to practice law, knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a 
tribunal, and failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a 
client—Indefinite suspension, with credit for time served under interim 
felony suspension, and restitution ordered. 
(No. 2022-0955—Submitted January 10, 2023—Decided May 2, 2023.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2021-027. 
______________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Ryan Shane Reed, of Urbana, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0084670, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2009.  On 
May 28, 2020, we entered an interim remedial order suspending Reed’s license 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(19).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Reed, 161 Ohio St.3d 1223, 
2020-Ohio-3113, 161 N.E.3d 726.  On December 23, 2020, we suspended his 
license on an interim basis following his conviction on multiple felony counts.  See 
In re Reed, 163 Ohio St.3d 1298, 2020-Ohio-6841, 171 N.E.3d 355.  Those 
suspensions remain in effect. 
{¶ 2} In a four-count complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Reed 
with 19 ethical violations—2 arising from his criminal convictions and the 
remaining 17 arising from misconduct related to his representation of three clients.  
The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and they submitted 90 stipulated exhibits.  They also jointly 
recommended that Reed be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with 
certain conditions on his reinstatement.  Reed and two other witnesses testified at a 
hearing conducted by a three-member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct. 
{¶ 3} The panel found that Reed had committed 16 of the stipulated rule 
violations.  On relator’s motion, the panel unanimously dismissed the three other 
alleged violations.  After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors and 
considering our precedent, the panel recommend that we indefinitely suspend Reed 
from the practice of law, credit him for 18 months of the time served under his 
interim felony suspension, and place certain conditions on his reinstatement to the 
profession.  The board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety and no objections 
have been filed. 
{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and the recommended 
sanction. 
 
 
January Term, 2023 
 
3 
MISCONDUCT 
Count One: Reed’s Criminal Convictions 
{¶ 5} In 2020, Reed’s girlfriend, P.S., and her then eight-year-old daughter 
resided with Reed in his Urbana home.  P.S. also worked as an administrative 
assistant in Reed’s law office, which he operated out of his house. 
{¶ 6} On May 5, 2020, P.S. found Reed “passed-out drunk” on the couch in 
his office.  Later that day, she and Reed got into an argument, and Reed shoved her 
as she tried to enter her car.  P.S. walked across the street to escape the assault.  
Sometime after P.S. left, Reed slashed two of the tires on her car.  After returning 
the next morning, P.S. called the Urbana Police Department to file a report.  She 
informed police that Reed was likely in court and that he was intoxicated. 
{¶ 7} That morning, Reed had appeared for a final evidentiary hearing in a 
Champaign County domestic-relations matter.  After the hearing, Urbana police 
officers arrested Reed in the courthouse.  As the officers escorted Reed to their 
cruiser, Reed removed the mask he was wearing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 
at which point the officers noted an odor of alcohol coming from his person.  The 
arresting officers administered several field-sobriety tests, which Reed failed.  Reed 
was charged with domestic violence and assault related to the incident with P.S. the 
previous day.  And because Reed had driven to the courthouse that morning, the 
police also charged him with operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol 
(“OVI”), a first-degree misdemeanor. 
{¶ 8} Reed was arraigned around 8:30 a.m. on May 7.  The judge issued a 
temporary protection order (“TPO”) in favor of P.S. but gave Reed until noon that 
day to retrieve his belongings from his home. 
{¶ 9} On May 14, despite the TPO, Reed returned to his home when P.S. 
and her daughter were present.  He fled when P.S. called 911.  That evening, when 
police questioned Reed over the telephone about his whereabouts that day, Reed 
denied that he had been in Urbana.  At the officer’s urging, Reed agreed to surrender 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
himself to authorities the next morning.  Reed failed to do so, and a warrant was 
issued for his arrest. 
{¶ 10} On May 16, Reed contacted P.S. by text message and telephone in 
violation of the TPO.  Later that day, he crawled through a window of his home but 
fled when the police arrived.  He was quickly apprehended and arrested—and found 
to be wearing a bulletproof vest. 
{¶ 11} In early June, the Champaign County Grand Jury returned a nine-
count indictment charging Reed with two felony counts of burglary, two felony 
counts of violating a protection order, two misdemeanor counts of violating a 
protection order, and one misdemeanor count each of OVI, domestic violence, and 
assault.  On June 18, Reed was arraigned on those charges in Champaign C.P. No. 
2020 CR 100.  He posted bond and was released the same day. 
{¶ 12} On June 22, Reed, while holding a knife, told his mother that he was 
going to his home to kill P.S.  Reed’s mother promptly informed Reed’s behavioral-
health counselor of the threat.  Reed’s counselor immediately alerted the police, 
and a high-speed chase ensued.  During the chase, Reed drove his car at more than 
99 m.p.h., lost control, and crashed into a tree.  He was arrested at the scene with a 
blood-alcohol level of 0.17.  Reed was arraigned on charges of failure to comply 
with an order or signal of a police officer, OVI, and inducing panic in Champaign 
C.P. No. 2020 CR 135.  The court set bond at $150,000.  The next day, the judge 
presiding over Reed’s earlier criminal case revoked Reed’s bond in that matter. 
{¶ 13} In early July, the Champaign County Grand Jury returned a four-
count indictment charging Reed with a felony count of failure to comply with an 
order or signal of a police officer, two misdemeanor counts of OVI, and a single 
misdemeanor count of inducing panic. 
{¶ 14} In late October, Reed pleaded guilty to amended counts of attempted 
burglary (a third-degree felony), trespassing in a habitation (a fourth-degree 
felony), and domestic violence (a first-degree misdemeanor) in Champaign C.P. 
January Term, 2023 
 
5 
No. 2020 CR 100.  The state dismissed the six other counts in that case.  In 
Champaign C.P. No. 2020 CR 135, Reed pleaded guilty to an amended count of 
attempted failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer (a fourth-
degree felony) and OVI (a first-degree misdemeanor).  The state dismissed the two 
remaining counts. 
{¶ 15} On December 3, 2020, the court sentenced Reed to 24 months in 
prison in Champaign C.P. No. 2020 CR 100 and 18 months in prison in Champaign 
C.P. No. 2020 CR 135, to be served concurrently, and imposed a three-year period 
of mandatory postrelease control for the attempted burglary offense. 
{¶ 16} Reed stipulated and the board found that his conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an illegal act that 
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) and 8.4(h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The board determined that the Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(h) violation captured Reed’s convictions that fall outside the scope of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) but nonetheless adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law.  
We find that his domestic-violence, attempted-failure-to-comply, and OVI 
convictions fall outside of the scope of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) but are violations of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 2013-
Ohio-3998, 997 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 21 (holding that a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) 
must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the lawyer engaged in 
misconduct that while not specifically prohibited by the rules, nonetheless 
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  We adopt these findings 
of misconduct. 
Count Two:  The Thomas and Baker Matters 
{¶ 17} On January 1, 2018, Brandon Thomas retained Reed and paid him 
$7,000 to represent him in a criminal matter.  Reed did not deposit Thomas’s 
payment into his client trust account.  After Reed entered a notice of appearance 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
and waived the preliminary hearing, Thomas was released on bond and returned to 
his home in California.  In late February 2018, the Miami County Grand Jury 
secretly indicted Thomas on five felony charges and a warrant was issued for his 
arrest.  Thomas was arrested in California on the outstanding warrant in late June 
or early July 2019.  After Thomas’s arraignment, Reed filed a standard discovery 
request and a motion to modify travel restrictions included in Thomas’s bond 
conditions so that he could return to his job in California; the bond motion was 
denied. 
{¶ 18} Thomas had difficulty communicating with Reed regarding the 
status of his case.  Consequently, he retained another attorney to serve as Reed’s 
cocounsel.  That attorney filed a notice of appearance in mid-January 2020, along 
with a renewed motion for modification of Thomas’s travel restrictions.  The court 
granted that motion six days later, and Thomas returned to California.  At the end 
of January, the prosecutor informed Reed of the state’s plea offer, which the 
prosecutor agreed to keep open through February 2020, but Reed did not 
communicate that offer to Thomas. 
{¶ 19} After several continuances, the court set Thomas’s case for a 
telephone status conference on May 7, 2020.  Reed attended the arraignment in one 
of his own criminal cases earlier that morning and joined the status conference 
approximately 15 minutes late.  The judge presiding over Thomas’s case asked 
Reed if he had communicated the state’s plea offer to Thomas.  Reed told the judge 
that he had not spoken to Thomas because he “had no access to his client files due 
to a domestic violence situation with a protection order in place.”  However, that 
protection order had been issued just moments before Reed joined the status 
conference, and Reed had been aware of the plea offer for more than three months. 
{¶ 20} The judge then asked Reed why he had failed to appear for a May 5 
pretrial conference in the case of another client, Dameek Curry Baker, which was 
set for trial the following week.  Reed stated that he did not appear because he “did 
January Term, 2023 
 
7 
not have his client file,” and that as a result, he also could not prepare for Baker’s 
upcoming jury trial.  But Reed has stipulated that he did not appear for that pretrial 
conference because he was “passed-out drunk.”  Moreover, the TPO issued against 
him gave him until noon that day to retrieve items from his home.  Based in part on 
Reed’s false representations to the court, the judge vacated Baker’s impending trial 
date.  After learning of Reed’s interim remedial suspension, the judge appointed a 
public defender to represent Baker.  Additionally, Thomas retained new lead 
counsel.  Although Reed did not complete Thomas’s representation, he kept the 
entire $7,000 fee. 
{¶ 21} The parties stipulated and the board found that Reed’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter), 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit 
advance legal fees and expenses into a client trust account, to be withdrawn by the 
lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred), 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to 
promptly refund any unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from 
employment), 3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false 
statement of fact or law to a tribunal), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).  We adopt 
these findings of misconduct. 
Counts Three and Four:  The Diehl and Kermode Matters 
{¶ 22} In March 2020, Stacy Diehl met with Reed and paid him a $2,450 
flat fee to represent her in a divorce action and, according to Diehl, a related civil-
protection-order (“CPO”) proceeding.  Reed did not deposit those funds into his 
client trust account.  Over the next two weeks, Diehl was unable to reach Reed.  He 
did not respond to an email about the CPO, and after he failed to attend a hearing 
on the matter, the court denied the CPO and dismissed the case. 
{¶ 23} Reed filed a complaint initiating Diehl’s divorce action in late May 
or early June 2020.  But he failed to respond to several emails and a telephone call 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8 
from Diehl seeking information about her case, due in part to his arrest on June 22.  
After learning that Reed was in custody, Diehl terminated his representation and 
retained new counsel.  Reed waited almost a year before he refunded Diehl’s 
retainer, less $400 that he had deposited with the court for costs. 
{¶ 24} In December 2019, Tina Kermode, a foster parent who was pursuing 
the adoption of four foster children, retained Reed to represent her on a child-
endangering charge.  She paid a flat fee of $1,500, but Reed did not deposit those 
funds into his client trust account.  Although Reed advised Kermode that she would 
need to appear for her arraignment, he did not respond to her emails inquiring about 
her case.  He met her at the courthouse shortly before her arraignment to introduce 
himself and spent approximately five minutes with her before she entered a not-
guilty plea. 
{¶ 25} Afraid that the children would be removed from her home, Kermode 
emailed Reed seeking reassurance and asking additional questions about her 
defense.  Reed sent Kermode three emails, giving cursory answers to her questions 
and transmitting the discovery he had received from the prosecutor.  Kermode then 
emailed Reed asking an additional question and attempting to schedule a time to 
speak with him before her next court appearance; Reed replied, stating that he 
would call her, but he failed to do so.  Reed met with Kermode for approximately 
five minutes on the morning of her pretrial conference and advised her to enter a 
no-contest plea.  Kermode followed his advice.  The court found her guilty of the 
charged offense and scheduled a sentencing hearing. 
{¶ 26} Kermode made numerous attempts to communicate with Reed after 
her foster-parent caseworker told her that a conviction for child endangering would 
disqualify her from serving as a foster parent and could be cause for removal of the 
children from her home.  Unable to reach Reed, she terminated his representation 
and hired a new attorney.  In early February, Reed told Kermode that he would 
withdraw from her case, but he waited nearly three weeks to do so. 
January Term, 2023 
 
9 
{¶ 27} The court granted Kermode’s motion to withdraw her plea, but she 
ultimately entered another no-contest plea to the same charge.  Although Kermode 
was permitted to adopt the foster children who had been in her care, she had to 
relinquish her foster-parent license due to her conviction.  Reed acknowledged that 
he owes Kermode a refund of $750 because he failed to complete his representation 
of her. 
{¶ 28} The parties stipulated and the board found that Reed’s conduct in the 
Diehl and Kermode matters violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act 
with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to 
comply as soon as practicable with a client’s reasonable requests for information), 
1.15(c), and 1.16(e), and that his conduct in the Diehl matter also violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d).  We adopt these findings of misconduct. 
RECOMMENDED SANCTION 
{¶ 29} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 30} The parties stipulated and the board found that four aggravating 
factors are present in this case: Reed acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, 
committed multiple offenses, harmed vulnerable clients, and failed to make 
restitution to Thomas and Kermode.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2), (4), (8), and (9).  
The parties also stipulated to four mitigating factors—namely, that Reed made full 
and free disclosure to the board and exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the 
disciplinary proceedings, presented evidence of his good character and reputation, 
had other penalties or sanctions imposed for his misconduct, and presented 
evidence of other interim rehabilitation related to his diagnosed mental and alcohol-
use disorders.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(4), (5), (6), and (8). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
{¶ 31} The board adopted the parties’ stipulated mitigating factors and 
noted that the testimony of Reed and his counselor established that Reed had been 
diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and a severe alcohol-use disorder that 
was in sustained remission (with the qualifier that Reed’s remission had been in a 
controlled environment).  Reed presented evidence that he regularly attends 
Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”) meetings and counseling sessions, has entered into 
a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), has been sober 
since his incarceration began in June 2020, and is firmly committed to recovery.  
Although Reed testified that his alcoholism affected every aspect of his life, he did 
not sufficiently establish that it contributed to his misconduct.  Consequently, the 
board did not find his diagnosed mental and substance-use disorders to be a 
mitigating factor.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7).  It did, however, attribute 
mitigating effect to Reed’s clean disciplinary record, see Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), 
and noted that Reed accepted full responsibility for his actions. 
{¶ 32} The parties jointly recommended that Reed be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law and that he not be permitted to apply for 
reinstatement until he has completed the postrelease control imposed in his criminal 
cases and made full restitution of $4,000 to Thomas and $750 to Kermode.  The 
parties also recommend that we place conditions on Reed’s reinstatement to ensure 
that he continues to comply with his treatment regimen and is mentally fit to resume 
the practice of law.  In addition, they agree that Reed should receive some credit 
for the time served under his interim felony suspension. 
{¶ 33} In determining the appropriate sanction to recommend for Reed’s 
misconduct, the board relied on three cases in which we imposed indefinite 
suspensions with similar conditions for reinstatement on attorneys who committed 
crimes and engaged in professional misconduct while abusing alcohol. 
{¶ 34} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Deters, 155 Ohio St.3d 478, 2018-Ohio-
5025, 122 N.E.3d 159, an attorney was convicted of misdemeanor counts of 
January Term, 2023 
 
11 
maintaining physical control of a vehicle while under the influence, excessive 
speed, improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle, assault, obstructing 
official business, and twice violating a domestic-violence CPO that had been issued 
in favor of his estranged wife, id. at ¶ 7-10.  Deters also accepted fees but failed to 
complete the work in 18 cases, failed to inform many of his clients of his 
incarceration, failed to return their telephone calls, and failed to file two appellate 
briefs, which resulted in the dismissal of one client’s case.  Id. at ¶ 12, 15, 17.  As 
a result of Deters’s failure to appear at scheduled hearings, warrants were issued 
for two of his clients and he was found in contempt of court.  Id. at ¶ 6, 12.  At the 
time of his disciplinary hearing, Deters owed an aggregate amount of roughly 
$29,000 in restitution to his former clients.  Id. at ¶ 24. 
{¶ 35} Three aggravating factors were present—Deters engaged in a pattern 
of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, and harmed vulnerable clients.  Id. at 
¶ 20.  The only mitigating factors were Deters’s cooperation in the disciplinary 
proceedings and the imposition of other sanctions.  Id. at ¶ 21.  Although Deters 
had been diagnosed with alcohol and substance-use disorders and an underlying 
mental disorder, he made no claim that they qualified as a mitigating factor under 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7).  Id. at ¶ 22.  We indefinitely suspended Deters from the 
practice of law, ordered him to make restitution to 14 clients, and imposed 
conditions on his reinstatement requiring that he comply with his OLAP contract 
and receive a prognosis from a qualified healthcare professional of his ability to 
return to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.  Id. at ¶ 23-25. 
{¶ 36} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Tinch, 160 Ohio St.3d 165, 2020-Ohio-
2991, 154 N.E.3d 78, we imposed a similar sanction on an attorney who committed 
71 violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his criminal 
conduct and his professional misconduct in 12 separate client matters.  Id. at ¶ 2, 6,  
9-11.  In contrast to Reed, Tinch established the existence of a mitigating substance-
use disorder, id. at ¶ 15, but he also had an interim default suspension imposed for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
his failure to respond to the disciplinary proceedings, id. at ¶ 2.  His eventual 
cooperation was tempered by his failure to accept responsibility and his lack of 
remorse for the harm he had caused to his clients.  Id. at ¶ 14-15.  We indefinitely 
suspended Tinch and afforded him no credit for the time served under his interim 
remedial and default suspensions.  Id. at ¶ 20. 
{¶ 37} Finally, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilson, 160 Ohio St.3d 528, 
2020-Ohio-3050, 159 N.E.3d 1141, an attorney committed a felony “with the intent 
to thwart or hamper the prosecution of a felony domestic-violence case” that was 
pending against the partner of Wilson’s former secretary.  Id. at ¶ 35.  He also 
committed a series of ethical violations with respect to eight clients, which included 
the neglect of client legal matters, the failure to reasonably communicate with 
clients, a false statement made to a tribunal, the failure to deposit unearned fees into 
a client trust account, and the failure to promptly refund unearned fees.  Id. at ¶ 13, 
17, 24, 26, 33.  At the time of his disciplinary hearing, Wilson owed just $200 in 
restitution to one client.  Id. at ¶ 32. 
{¶ 38} The aggravating and mitigating factors in Wilson were comparable 
to those present in this case, id. at ¶ 35-36, and like Reed, Wilson failed to establish 
his existing mental-health and substance-use disorders as mitigating factors, id. at 
¶ 36.  We indefinitely suspended Wilson from the practice of law, credited him for 
the time served under his interim felony suspension, which by then had exceeded 
two years, and imposed treatment-centered conditions on his reinstatement.  Id. at 
¶ 43. 
{¶ 39} After considering Reed’s misconduct, the applicable aggravating 
and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed in Deters, Tinch, and Wilson, the 
board concluded that an indefinite suspension coupled with an order of restitution 
and the parties’ proposed conditions for reinstatement is the appropriate sanction 
for Reed’s misconduct.  Citing the condition that Reed not be permitted to petition 
for reinstatement until he has successfully completed his term of postrelease 
January Term, 2023 
 
13 
control, his genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility for his wrongdoing, 
and his commitment to his treatment program, the board recommends that he 
receive credit for 18 months of the time he has served under his interim felony 
suspension.  Having reviewed the record in this case and our precedent, we agree 
with the board’s recommendation. 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 40} Accordingly, Ryan Shane Reed is indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio and ordered to make restitution of $4,000 to Brandon 
Thomas and $750 to Tina Kermode within 90 days of this order.  He shall receive 
18 months’ credit for the time served under his interim felony suspension, but he 
shall not be eligible to petition for reinstatement until he successfully completes 
any terms of postrelease control imposed in relation to his convictions in State v. 
Reed, Champaign C.P. Nos. 2020 CR 100 and 2020 CR 135 (Dec. 4, 2020).  In 
addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(25), Reed’s reinstatement shall be 
conditioned on proof of (1) his compliance with his May 31, 2022 OLAP contract, 
(2) his continued participation in AA, and (3) his continued treatment with Journey 
4 Self, L.L.C., or another provider approved by OLAP.  Reed shall also be required 
to submit an opinion from his treatment provider stating that he is able to return to 
the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.  Costs are taxed to Reed. 
Judgment accordingly. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, 
and DETERS, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen H. Osmond, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Coughlan Law Firm, L.L.C., and Jonathan E. Coughlan, for respondent. 
_________________