Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Trieu

Citation: 2012-Ohio-2714

Docket Number: 2011-2034

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-06-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Trieu, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2714.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-2714 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. TRIEU. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Trieu,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2714.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple violations of Texas Disciplinary Rules of 
Professional Conduct, including neglecting entrusted legal matters, failing 
to promptly refund any unearned fee upon withdrawal from representation 
of a client, and  dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Indefinite 
suspension. 
(No. 2011-2034—Submitted January 18, 2012—Decided June 20, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-067. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Vinh Chi Trieu, of Houston, Texas, Attorney 
Registration No. 0076557, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2003.  In 
August 2007, Trieu accepted an offer of employment from Tindall & Foster, P.C. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
(now known as FosterQuan, L.L.P.), an Austin, Texas law firm.  He is not 
licensed to practice law in Texas and consequently limited his practice to 
immigration law.  Trieu has stipulated and the board has found that during the 
course of that employment, he violated Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional 
Conduct 1.01(b)(1) (prohibiting neglect of an entrusted legal matter), 1.15(d) 
(requiring a lawyer to promptly refund any unearned fee upon termination of the 
lawyer’s representation), and 8.04(a)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  Therefore, the 
board recommends that we indefinitely suspend Trieu from the practice of law.  
We adopt the parties’ stipulations and the board’s findings of fact and misconduct 
in their entirety and indefinitely suspend Trieu from the practice of law in Ohio. 
Procedural History and Misconduct 
{¶ 2} Following an investigation conducted by relator, disciplinary 
counsel, Trieu filed a written notice waiving probable-cause review of relator’s 
disciplinary complaint.  The complaint charged Trieu with multiple violations of 
the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his handling of 
six separate client matters and his improper use of a firm credit card while he was 
practicing in Austin, Texas. 
{¶ 3} As an attorney licensed in the state of Ohio, Trieu is subject to the 
disciplinary authority of this state regardless of where his conduct occurs.  
Prof.Cond.R. 8.5(a).  And for any conduct that does not occur in connection with 
a matter pending before a tribunal, “the rules of the jurisdiction in which the 
lawyer’s conduct occurred, or, if the predominant effect of the conduct is in a 
different jurisdiction, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to the conduct.”  
Prof.Cond.R. 8.5(b)(2). 
{¶ 4} Relator’s complaint was certified to the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline on July 27, 2011.  The complaint charges Trieu 
with accepting retainers in six client matters, concealing those clients from his 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
employer, and keeping their retainers for his own use.  The complaint further 
alleges that Trieu used the firm’s credit card to obtain cash advances for his own 
benefit and, in his expense reports, falsely attributed the transactions to a client of 
the firm. 
{¶ 5} In his answer, Trieu admitted each of the allegations in relator’s 
complaint.  The parties later entered into stipulations of fact and misconduct. 
{¶ 6} The panel appointed to hear the matter granted the parties’ joint 
motion to waive a formal hearing and adopted the parties’ stipulated findings of 
fact and misconduct.  Those stipulations demonstrate that while employed by 
FosterQuan L.L.P., Trieu accepted retainers from six immigration clients.  He 
failed to complete a client data sheet or initiate other law-firm processes to obtain 
client file numbers, open billing records, create physical files, or add four of those 
new clients to the case-management software system, thereby concealing his 
representation of those clients from his law firm. 
{¶ 7} Trieu kept at least $20,495 of the retainers paid by these clients for 
himself.  He altered one of the retainer checks to add himself as a payee and lied 
to two clients about the work that he had performed on their cases.  Trieu 
stipulated that in several of the cases, he did not earn the full fee and did not 
refund the clients’ retainers. 
{¶ 8} Trieu also stipulated that he took four cash advances totaling 
$3,628 on a law-firm credit card.  The transactions created another $108.84 in 
fees.  He used those funds for personal expenses unrelated to any client 
representation, though he falsely attributed the cash advances and fees to a client 
on his law-firm expense reports.  As of October 20, 2011, he had reimbursed his 
firm only $1,000. 
{¶ 9} Based upon the stipulated facts, the parties agreed, and the panel 
and board found, that Trieu had neglected client matters, failed to promptly return 
unearned fees upon the termination of his representation, and engaged in conduct 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of Texas 
Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 1.01(b)(1), 1.15(d), and 8.04(a)(3).  
We also adopt the stipulations of fact and misconduct as submitted by the parties. 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} In recommending a sanction, the board considered the aggravating 
and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  As 
aggravating factors, the parties stipulated that Trieu acted with a selfish motive 
and engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), and (d).  The board agreed but also found that Trieu’s 
victims were vulnerable and were harmed by his conduct and that Trieu had failed 
to make full restitution to them.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h) and (i).  
Mitigating factors stipulated by the parties and found by the board include the 
absence of a prior disciplinary record and Trieu’s cooperation in the disciplinary 
process.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d). 
{¶ 11} The parties have stipulated that an indefinite suspension from the 
practice of law is the appropriate sanction for Trieu’s misconduct.  We have 
previously stated that “[t]aking retainers and failing to carry out contracts of 
employment is tantamount to theft of the fee from the client,” Cincinnati Bar 
Assn. v. Weaver, 102 Ohio St.3d 264, 2004-Ohio-2683, 809 N.E.2d 1113, ¶ 16, 
and that permanent disbarment is the presumptive sanction for such acts, 
Disciplinary Counsel v. France, 97 Ohio St.3d 240, 2002-Ohio-5945, 778 N.E.2d 
573, ¶ 11.  Nonetheless, citing Trieu’s lack of a prior disciplinary record, his 
cooperative attitude in the disciplinary proceedings, and the partial restitution he 
made to his former law firm, the board agrees that the stipulated sanction of an 
indefinite suspension is appropriate here. 
{¶ 12} We have previously imposed indefinite suspensions for attorneys 
who have misappropriated client funds in the presence of sufficient mitigating 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
evidence. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Squire, 130 Ohio St.3d 368, 2011-
Ohio-5578, 958 N.E.2d 914, ¶ 70.  In the absence of a prior disciplinary record, 
and in light of Trieu’s substantial cooperation in this disciplinary proceeding, we 
agree that an indefinite suspension is the proper sanction for Trieu’s misconduct. 
{¶ 13} Accordingly, we indefinitely suspend Vinh Chi Trieu from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to Trieu. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger, Senior 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Vinh Chi Trieu, pro se. 
______________________