Case Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Washington

Citation: 2015-Ohio-2449

Docket Number: 2014-2160

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-06-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Washington, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2449.] 
 
 
 
 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. 2015-OHIO-2449 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. WASHINGTON. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Washington, Slip Opinion  
No. 2015-Ohio-2449.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to deposit client funds in client trust account—
Failure to maintain proper records of client funds—Mishandling of client 
funds—Failure to act with reasonable diligence—Six-month suspension, 
all stayed on conditions—One-year period of monitored probation. 
(No. 2014-2160—Submitted February 4, 2015—Decided June 23, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-065. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Cheryl Renee Washington of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0038012, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1987.  
On December 13, 2013, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a complaint with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline1 alleging that 
Washington had violated 20 Rules of Professional Conduct in representing two 
separate clients.  The parties submitted stipulations of fact and misconduct and 
recommended that 11 alleged violations be dismissed. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the board issued a report incorporating the parties’ 
stipulated findings of fact and recommending that Washington be suspended from 
the practice of law for six months, all stayed, and serve a period of monitored 
probation for her violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with 
reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.15 (requiring a lawyer to hold 
funds belonging to a client or third party in a client trust account separate from 
her own property), 1.15(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for the 
lawyer’s client trust account, setting forth the name of the account, the date, 
amount, and client affected by each credit and debit, and the balance in the 
account), and 1.15(a)(5) (requiring a lawyer to perform and retain a monthly 
reconciliation of the funds held in the lawyer’s client trust account).  The panel 
also unanimously dismissed 16 additional alleged violations based on the 
insufficiency of the evidence.  The board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety. 
{¶ 3} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct, suspend 
Washington from the practice of law for six months, all stayed, and order her to 
serve a one-year period of monitored probation. 
Misconduct 
The Parker Matter 
{¶ 4} Tynia Parker retained Washington to represent her in a personal-
injury matter in January 2007.  Washington settled the matter with the full consent 
of the client for $24,000 in September 2008.  Shortly thereafter, she received a 
$12,335.72 settlement check and deposited it into her firm’s operating account.  
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St. 3d CII. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
At the time the case was settled, Parker had separated from her husband, and 
Washington agreed to represent her in her divorce with the understanding that she 
would receive payment for legal fees and expenses—though she did not have 
Parker sign a separate fee agreement. 
{¶ 5} Although she was obligated to satisfy a subrogation lien out of 
Parker’s settlement proceeds, Washington was able to negotiate a settlement that 
reduced that payment by approximately $4,000 and satisfied the lien in April 
2010.  Parker’s divorce was finalized in October 2010, and in January 2011, 
Washington issued a $5,184.30 check drawn on her operating account to Parker, 
but the bank rejected it for insufficient funds.  Upon learning that the check had 
been dishonored, Washington tendered a $7,000 certified check to Parker to cover 
her bank fees for the dishonored check and to resolve a dispute regarding the fee 
she had charged for Parker’s divorce.  On these facts, the board found that 
Washington had failed to hold Parker’s funds in a client trust account separate 
from her own property in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15. 
The Boone Matter 
{¶ 6} In 2007, the probate court of Montgomery County declared 
Juawawno Boone incompetent and appointed his mother, Sherrill D. Boone, to 
serve as the guardian of his person.  Because Juawawno Boone was going to 
receive a settlement as part of a nationwide class-action lawsuit, Sherrill Boone 
retained Washington to create a special-needs trust and to open a guardianship of 
the estate for Juawawno Boone to avoid jeopardizing his governmental benefits.  
Washington sought and obtained Sherrill Boone’s appointment as the guardian of 
Juawawno Boone’s estate in 2009.  Although she disclosed that Juawawno Boone 
was entitled to receive class-action settlement proceeds of $125,000, she did not 
seek or obtain the court’s approval of the settlement. 
{¶ 7} From July 2009 through March 2010, Washington received four 
settlement checks totaling $170,982.76 on Juawawno Boone’s behalf.  Rather 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
than placing the settlement proceeds into a separate account that would earn 
interest for Juawawno Boone’s benefit, however, Washington deposited them into 
her IOLTA trust account, which pays interest to the Legal Aid Fund.  Washington 
admits that, at times, the balance of her client trust account fell below the amount 
of the settlement proceeds she held for Boone, that she did not maintain a record 
for each bank account setting forth the balance in the client’s account, and that 
she did not maintain a monthly reconciliation of the items in her client trust 
account.  Washington also acknowledges that she never obtained the probate 
court’s approval for disbursement of the settlement proceeds for Juawawno 
Boone’s benefit. 
{¶ 8} In July 2011, Sherrill Boone retained another attorney to assist her 
with guardianship and trust matters.  Washington issued a $75,056.21 check 
drawn on her trust account payable to “Sherrill Boone, Guardian of Juawawno 
Boone” on September 1, 2011.  When Sherrill Boone presented the check for 
payment on September 29, 2011, the bank dishonored it for insufficient funds.  
Washington replaced that check with a cashier’s check for the same amount on 
October 3, 2011. 
{¶ 9} The probate court approved Juawawno Boone’s class-action 
settlement in January 2012 and appointed attorney Carl D. Sherrets as the 
successor trustee of the special-needs trust.  Sherrets filed exceptions to the final 
account filed by Sherrill Boone, claiming that she had not fully accounted for all 
of the settlement proceeds.  Between September and November 2012, Washington 
issued two checks to Sherrets for a total of $30,921.25, representing settlement 
proceeds belonging to Juawawno Boone.  An April 1, 2013 entry of the probate 
court overruled Sherrets’s exceptions because the parties to that proceeding 
agreed that all funds had been accounted for and that all funds disbursed were 
used for Boone’s benefit. 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated and the board found that Washington’s 
conduct in the Boone matter violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(3), 1.15(a)(5), and 1.3. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} In determining what sanction to recommend to this court, the board 
considered the ethical duties the lawyer violated, the presence of aggravating and 
mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B),2 and the sanctions imposed in 
similar cases. 
{¶ 12} As mitigating factors, the board found that Washington (1) has no 
prior disciplinary record, (2) made a timely good-faith effort to make restitution 
and rectify the consequences of her misconduct, (3) demonstrated a cooperative 
attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and (4) established her good 
character and reputation apart from the charged misconduct.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), (d), and (e).  No aggravating factors were found. 
{¶ 13} The board acknowledged several cases in which this court imposed 
public reprimands or fully stayed suspensions on attorneys who engaged in 
conduct comparable to Washington’s.  See, e.g., Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hetzer, 137 
Ohio St.3d 572, 2013-Ohio-5480, 2 N.E.3d 247 (publicly reprimanding an 
attorney who failed to timely deposit client funds into his client trust account, 
failed to maintain accurate records of client funds in his possession, and 
improperly handled funds that he held in escrow for the benefit of a client and the 
client’s spouse); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Helbling, 124 Ohio St.3d 510, 2010-
Ohio-955, 924 N.E.2d 364 (publicly reprimanding an attorney for misconduct 
including the mishandling of client funds that resulted in an overdraft of his client 
trust account); Toledo Bar Assn. v. Royer, 133 Ohio St.3d 545, 2012-Ohio-5147, 
979 N.E.2d 329 (imposing a one-year stayed suspension with a two-year period of 
monitored probation on an attorney who neglected a client’s legal matter, failed to 
                                                 
2 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and (2) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
hold unearned fees in his client trust account, and failed to promptly deliver funds 
or other property that a client was entitled to receive); Akron Bar Assn. v. Tomer, 
138 Ohio St.3d 302, 2013-Ohio-5494, 6 N.E.3d 1133 (imposing a two-year stayed 
suspension with a period of monitored probation on an attorney who neglected 
client matters, mismanaged and made unauthorized withdrawals from her client 
trust account, and submitted false evidence during the ensuing disciplinary 
investigation). 
{¶ 14} In light of the sanctions imposed in these cases and the parties’ 
belief that a period of monitored probation should be imposed, the board 
recommends that we suspend Washington from the practice of law for six months, 
all stayed, and that she be required to serve a period of monitored probation.  
Having independently reviewed the record, we adopt the board’s findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommended sanction. 
{¶ 15} Accordingly, Cheryl Renee Washington is suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for six months, all stayed on the condition that she engage 
in no further misconduct.  Additionally, Washington shall complete a one-year 
period of monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21).  If 
Washington fails to comply with the condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted, 
and she shall serve the full six-month suspension.  Costs are taxed to Washington. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
Brian L. Wildermuth and Jeffrey A. Hazlett, for relator. 
Jonathan Hollingsworth, for respondent. 
_________________________