Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Boggs

Citation: 2004-Ohio-4657

Docket Number: 20040962

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-09-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Boggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 108, 2004-Ohio-4657.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. BOGGS. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Boggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 108, 2004-Ohio-4657.] 
Attorneys at law – One-year suspension, stayed on conditions – Failure to 
maintain client funds in separate, identifiable bank account – Failure to 
keep complete records of client funds in attorney’s possession or to render 
proper accounts. 
(No. 2004-0962 — Submitted June 29, 2004 — Decided September 15, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-104. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Kenneth Ray Boggs of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0025305, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1980.  On 
December 8, 2003, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged respondent with 
having violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ 
consent-to-discipline agreement.  See Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations 
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The board 
accepted the panel’s recommendation to adopt the agreement, including the 
stipulated misconduct and suggested sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶2} 
The parties stipulated and the board found that respondent had 
previously been disciplined for having violated DR 4-101 (barring an attorney from 
breaching a client’s confidence).  On October 19, 1988, we publicly reprimanded 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
respondent for this misconduct.  See Columbus Bar Assn. v. Boggs (1988), 39 Ohio 
St.3d 601, 529 N.E.2d 936. 
{¶3} 
In this case, relator charged, along with other charges of misconduct 
later dropped, that respondent had failed to maintain client funds separate from his 
own and in an identifiable bank account, a violation of DR 9-102(A), and also did 
not keep complete records of client funds in his possession or render appropriate 
accounts, a violation of 9-102(B)(3).  Relator charged these violations because in 
investigating two grievances, relator learned that in 2002, respondent had (1) 
attempted to repay a client $250 in unearned fees with a check, drawn from his 
trust account, that was returned for insufficient funds, and (2) failed to promptly 
repay money advanced in anticipation of a real estate transaction that fell through 
or to pay for personalty that he had purchased from the seller. 
{¶4} 
Relator asked to examine financial records for respondent’s trust 
account dating from January 1, 2001, including the trust account statements, his 
records of disbursements and deposits, and his general ledger.  The examination 
yielded the following stipulations: 
{¶5} 
“Respondent provided the requested records available to him, 
including a single check register for his trust account covering the period from 
1996 to the date of turnover.  Respondent informed Relator that the ledger book 
covering the period from 1996 to January 2001 was destroyed when the trunk of 
his automobile was flooded because of a defect in the vehicle.  He also stated that 
other trust account records were lost or stolen at the time he moved from his home 
because he separated from his wife.  Regardless of the reason, Respondent’s 
records were incomplete at the time of the investigation. 
{¶6} 
“Relator undertook a thorough examination of all trust account 
records produced by Respondent for the period of December 1996 through April 
2003. Relator engaged the Certified Public Accounting firm of Norman, Jones, 
Enlow & Company to assist Relator in reviewing Respondent’s trust records. 
January Term, 2004 
3 
{¶7} 
“The examination revealed, inter alia, that Respondent’s available 
trust records were disordered, incomplete, unreconciled, often illegible, and 
otherwise [incapable of being] audited.  Respondent, given the deficiency of his 
records, at all relevant times during the investigation, was unable to satisfactorily 
demonstrate through his available records whose money was in his trust account at 
any given time or what amounts pertained to which client(s). 
{¶8} 
“Because he did not always record deposits in his checkbook 
register, Respondent could not routinely determine the balance of his trust account 
independent of bank statements. 
{¶9} 
“Respondent did not have the means to properly account to clients 
whose money he held because: (a) he often failed to make notations on his checks 
or in his check register regarding the reason given checks were written; (b) he 
could not produce a ledger or other records that completely showed the intake and 
disposition of all trust fund withdrawals and deposits; and, (c) he did not reconcile 
his records with [his] bank statement. 
{¶10} “It is not possible to determine from the available records whether 
or not these disbursements were proper because he wrote checks made out to 
himself without any notations as to the purpose of the checks. 
{¶11} “On at least one occasion, Respondent mistakenly used his 
operating account as his trust account, thereby commingling trust money with his 
own funds. He mistakenly disbursed trust money from the operating account on at 
least one occasion.” 
{¶12} On these facts, the board found that respondent had violated DR 9-
102(A) and 9-102(B)(3). 
Sanction 
{¶13} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the mitigating and aggravating features of respondent’s case.  The 
parties stipulated that respondent had been cooperative throughout the disciplinary 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
process and was of good character and reputation.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d) 
and (e).  The parties also stipulated that respondent did not commit his infractions 
out of dishonesty or self-interest and that he had timely attempted in good faith to 
make restitution to the two grievants.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b) and (c).  The 
board accepted these stipulations, including that respondent had paid the grievant-
seller the $118 she claimed after the filing of relator’s complaint and had earlier 
refunded $250 to the grievant-client.  The board found as an aggravating feature 
the fact that respondent had previously been disciplined for professional 
misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a). 
{¶14} The board recommended, consistent with the parties’ and the 
panel’s suggestion, that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one 
year, with enforcement of the suspension stayed on the condition that respondent 
successfully complete a one-year probation under the supervision of a monitor. 
{¶15} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 9-102(A) and 
9-102(B)(3) as found by the board.  We also agree that a one-year suspension, all 
stayed on conditions, is a commensurate sanction for this misconduct.  
Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one 
year; however, enforcement of this sanction is stayed on the conditions that 
respondent successfully complete a one-year probation in accordance with Gov.Bar 
R. V(9) under the supervision of a monitor to be appointed by relator and that 
respondent complete 12 hours of continuing legal education consisting of course 
work on law office management.  If respondent fails to comply with these 
conditions, the stay shall be lifted, and respondent shall serve the entire one-year 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
January Term, 2004 
5 
 
Bruce Campbell, Bar Counsel, and Jill M. Snitcher McQuain, Assistant Bar 
Counsel; Wiles, Boyle, Buckholder & Bringardner, L.P.A., and Michael L. Close, 
for relator. 
 
James W. Adair III, for respondent. 
_____________________