Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Noel

Citation: 2012-Ohio-5456

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-11-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Noel, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5456.] 
 
 
 
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-5456 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. NOEL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Noel,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5456.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including client-trust-account improprieties, dishonesty, and failure to 
cooperate in a disciplinary investigation—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2012-0656—Submitted June 6, 2012—Decided November 28, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-051. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Gerald Thomas Noel Jr. of Bexley, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0063972, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1994.  
On June 17, 2010, we determined that Noel had committed professional 
misconduct for neglecting entrusted client matters, failing to promptly deliver a 
client’s file upon request, and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary process.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Noel, 126 Ohio St.3d 56, 2010-Ohio-2714, 930 N.E.2d 
312.  We suspended Noel from the practice of law for two years, with six months 
stayed, on the conditions that he commit no further misconduct and complete a 
law-office-management course.  Id. at ¶ 27.  Noel’s term of suspension has 
expired, but he has not applied for reinstatement. 
{¶ 2} On June 13, 2011, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged Noel in a 
two-count complaint with failing to maintain client funds in a separate, interest-
bearing trust account; engaging in conduct that reflects adversely on the fitness to 
practice law and involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and 
failing to cooperate in the disciplinary process.  Noel did not initially answer, and 
relator therefore moved for an entry of default.  On October 11, 2011, after 
requesting an extension of time to respond, Noel answered.1 
{¶ 3} On January 20, 2011, a three-member panel of the board conducted 
a hearing, where Noel and one of the grievants testified.  The parties also 
submitted stipulated facts, exhibits, and violations of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct.  Relator recommended a sanction of indefinite suspension, while Noel 
recommended that he serve another two-year suspension, with the entire term 
stayed on the condition of monitored probation.  The panel accepted the parties’ 
stipulations, made additional findings of fact, and recommended that Noel be 
indefinitely suspended, with the suspension to commence on expiration of the 
previously imposed two-year suspension.  The board adopted the panel’s findings 
of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction.  No objections have been 
filed. 
{¶ 4} We, in turn, accept the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and 
indefinitely suspend Noel from the practice of law in Ohio. 
                                                 
1 We note that both the panel and board reports indicate that Noel filed an answer on October 11, 
2011, and therefore we accept that the answer was filed.  The record, however, does not include a 
copy of Noel’s answer.   
January Term, 2012 
 
3
Misconduct 
Count One—The Zubaidah Matter 
{¶ 5} During the summer of 2010, King Ayettey Zubaidah contacted 
Noel to file a motion for judicial release on behalf of Zubaidah’s son, KC Del 
McGee, who was a former client of Noel’s.  Noel agreed to file the motion on 
McGee’s behalf, and in early September 2010, Zubaidah sent a $350 money order 
to Noel’s former office address.  On September 16, 2010, Noel deposited the 
money into his business checking account, even though he also maintained a 
client trust account at the same bank.  In early October 2010, Zubaidah sent Noel 
a second $350 money order, which Noel also deposited into his business checking 
account.  After delivery of the second money order, Zubaidah attempted to 
contact Noel several times about the status of the judicial-release motion, but 
Noel did not return any of Zubaidah’s phone calls. 
{¶ 6} In November 2010, Zubaidah filed a grievance against Noel.  In 
December 2010 and January 2011, relator sent Noel three separate letters of 
inquiry by certified mail regarding Zubaidah’s grievance.  Although Noel signed 
for each letter, he failed to respond to any of them.  Relator ultimately subpoenaed 
Noel for a deposition, and he appeared on February 16, 2011. 
{¶ 7} At his deposition, Noel testified that he had picked up Zubaidah’s 
money orders from his former office in December 2010.  Noel further testified 
that he did not return Zubaidah’s money because he believed he could not have 
any contact with Zubaidah after the filing of the grievance.  Instead, Noel felt he 
was “protecting” the money by depositing it into his own business checking 
account. 
{¶ 8} After the deposition, relator sent Noel two separate follow-up 
letters, each requesting a response.  Noel, however, failed to respond to either 
letter.  Noel responded only after relator filed a complaint and motion for entry of 
default, at which time Noel answered and stipulated to most of the allegations and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
all the charged misconduct.  By that time, November 2011, Noel was unable to 
refund Zubaidah’s money because of his personal financial situation. 
{¶ 9} At the January 2012 panel hearing, Noel retracted portions of his 
deposition testimony.  Specifically, he acknowledged that he had received and 
deposited Zubaidah’s money orders in September and October 2010 before 
Zubaidah filed the grievance against him.  Noel further acknowledged that despite 
accepting Zubaidah’s money in September and October, the motion for judicial 
release could not have been filed until May 2011, at the earliest.  Finally, Noel 
could not give a reasonable justification for failing to refund Zubaidah’s money 
before his own finances had depleted, although, at the hearing, he handed a 
cashier’s check to Zubaidah for $777.76, which was meant as a refund, plus 
interest. 
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated, the board found, and we agree that Noel’s 
conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold property of 
clients in an interest-bearing client trust account, separate from the lawyer’s own 
property), 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a 
demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation), 8.4(c) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law) and Gov. 
Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation). 
Count Two—The Riley Matter 
{¶ 11} On the day before Noel’s deposition in the Zubaidah matter, relator 
received a grievance filed against Noel by Crystal Riley.  In her grievance, Riley 
claimed that Noel had represented her in a criminal matter and that she had been 
trying to obtain a copy of the discovery filed in her case for the past three years.  
Relator and Noel briefly discussed Riley’s grievance at the Zubaidah deposition, 
January Term, 2012 
 
5
and relator advised Noel that he would be receiving a formal letter of inquiry 
about the new grievance. 
{¶ 12} As promised, in February and again in March 2011, relator sent 
Noel two separate letters of inquiry.  Each letter was sent by certified mail and 
requested that Noel respond in writing to Riley’s allegations.  Although Noel 
signed for the letters, he failed to respond.  Relator ultimately determined that 
there was insufficient evidence of an ethical violation relating to the merits of 
Riley’s grievance, but the parties stipulated, the board found, and we agree that 
Noel violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) for failing to respond 
to relator’s letters of inquiry or to otherwise cooperate in the investigation. 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
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.  
{¶ 14} We have already identified Noel’s ethical breaches to his clients 
and the legal profession.  By failing to deposit Zubaidah’s money orders into a 
client trust account, Noel violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a).  He violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and 8.4(h) by accepting and spending Zubaidah’s money, 
failing to do the requested work, and giving contradictory testimony in his 
deposition and at the hearing regarding when he had accepted the money orders or 
why he had not returned the money.  Finally, Noel violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) 
and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) for repeatedly failing to respond to relator’s letters in the 
Zubaidah and Riley matters. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 15} The board did not find any mitigating factors.  The board 
acknowledged that Noel attributed most of his misconduct to grief over his 
younger brother’s death, which had occurred weeks before his acceptance of 
Zubaidah’s first money order.  At the panel hearing, Noel testified that he had 
discovered his brother’s body, which later caused him stress and nightmares.  
Noel blamed his failure to respond to relator’s letters of inquiry on that stress, and 
Noel believed that the stress continued to affect him at the time of his February 
2011 deposition.  The board found, however, that because Noel had not sought 
professional help for his emotional condition—and therefore had not been 
diagnosed with a mental disability by a qualified health care professional—the 
stress did not qualify as a mitigating factor under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).  
Similarly, the board found that because Noel did not tender restitution to 
Zubaidah until the date of the panel hearing, January 20, 2012, more than a year 
after Noel had accepted Zubaidah’s money, he did not make a “timely good faith 
effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct” under BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c). 
{¶ 16} As to aggravating factors, the parties stipulated that Noel had been 
previously disciplined, had engaged in multiple offenses, had failed to cooperate 
in the disciplinary proceedings that led to his two-year suspension and to the 
instant disciplinary proceedings, and had failed to make restitution to Zubaidah.  
See BCBD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (d), (e), and (i).  The board accepted the 
stipulations but acknowledged that Noel ultimately refunded Zubaidah’s money, 
thereby making the final aggravating factor no longer applicable.  However, 
because Noel was unable to justify why he spent the money after having accepted 
it, the board accorded “little weight” to Noel’s eventual refund. 
{¶ 17} For precedent, the board cited Disciplinary Counsel v. Davis, 130 
Ohio St.3d 440, 2011-Ohio-6016, 958 N.E.2d 1230, to support its 
recommendation of an indefinite suspension.  In Davis, we indefinitely suspended 
January Term, 2012 
 
7
a lawyer for accepting client money and not performing the work, failing to return 
clients’ documents and money while under suspension, and failing to cooperate in 
the disciplinary process.  Id. at ¶ 3-16.  We held that these violations, combined 
with a profusion of aggravating factors—including previous discipline for 
comparable conduct—and the lack of any mitigating factors, warranted an 
indefinite suspension.  Id. at ¶ 22.  The board also considered four analogous 
cases in which the same penalty had been levied.  See, e.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar 
Assn. v. Gottehrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 519, 2010-Ohio-929, 924 N.E.2d 825 
(indefinite suspension for accepting client retainers in matters in which the 
respondent did not do the work, failing to respond to client communications, 
failing to return client retainers, and failing to cooperate in disciplinary 
proceedings); Columbus Bar Assn. v. Clovis, 125 Ohio St.3d 434, 2010-Ohio-
1859, 928 N.E.2d 1078 (indefinite suspension for accepting a client’s money for a 
matter in which the respondent did not do the work, failing to return a client’s 
documents and money, and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary proceeding); 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Van Sickle, 128 Ohio St.3d 376, 2011-Ohio-774, 944 
N.E.2d 677 (indefinite suspension for practicing while under license suspension, 
failing to complete the work, and failing to respond to requests for return of funds 
and documentation); and Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wagner, 113 Ohio St.3d 
158, 2007-Ohio-1253, 863 N.E.2d 164 (indefinite suspension for accepting 
client’s money for matters in which respondent did not do the work, failing to 
return client’s money, and failing to cooperate in disciplinary proceedings). 
{¶ 18} Having reviewed the record, the aggravating factors, and the fact 
that no mitigating factors exist in this case, and having considered the sanctions 
previously imposed for comparable conduct, we adopt the board’s recommended 
sanction of an indefinite suspension.  Accordingly, Gerald Thomas Noel Jr. is 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio, with the 
suspension to commence on the date of our order.  Costs are taxed to Noel. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, Lori J. Brown, Chief 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen H. Osmond, for relator. 
Gerald T. Noel Jr., pro se. 
______________________