Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Vargo

Citation: 2002-Ohio-4799

Docket Number: 20020697

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-09-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Vargo, 96 Ohio St.3d 429, 2002-Ohio-4799.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. VARGO. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Vargo, 96 Ohio St.3d 429, 2002-Ohio-4799.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with sanction stayed on 
conditions — Adding signatures to copy of a trust document for own 
records, mistakenly giving the altered copy to client’s new attorney, and 
later failing to timely and completely account for the same client’s trust 
assets. 
(No. 2002-0697 — Submitted June 5, 2002 — Decided September 25, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-80. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In this case, we must decide the sanction for an attorney who, after 
having added signatures to a copy of a trust document for his records, mistakenly 
gave the altered copy to his client’s new attorney and later failed to timely and 
completely account for the same client’s trust assets.  The Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended that respondent, 
Thomas W. Vargo of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0013212, be 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months, all stayed on 
conditions, for this conduct.  The board found that the conduct violated DR 1-
102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law), 6-
101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out 
a contract of employment), and 9-102(B)(3) (failing to maintain complete records 
and provide appropriate accounts).  We agree that a stayed suspension of six 
months is the appropriate sanction. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶2} 
Relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged respondent with 
having violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 9-102(B)(3) in 
January 2002.  The parties entered into a consent-to-discipline agreement in 
which respondent admitted to these disciplinary infractions and also agreed to the 
proposed six-month suspension, which would be stayed on the conditions that he 
(1) resign if he was serving as trustee for any trust and not serve as a trustee in the 
future, (2) refrain from violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and 
(3) timely pay the costs assessed for the disciplinary proceeding. 
{¶3} 
A panel of the board heard the cause and found the following facts.  
Respondent formerly represented John and Ann Hohmann and prepared for the 
couple a trust agreement, among other estate-planning documents.  The 
Hohmanns retained other counsel, and in January 2000 their new attorney asked 
respondent for complete copies of the trust agreement, including the grantor’s 
acknowledgement.  Respondent inadvertently delivered to the attorney a copy of 
the trust document on which he had “recreated” some signatures for his records.  
The panel, however, was convinced that the delivery was an honest clerical 
mistake and that the signatures did not amount to forgery.  The panel also found 
that while respondent later failed to provide a complete and timely accounting of 
trust assets to the Hohmanns’ new attorney, the Hohmanns suffered no financial 
injury from his delay. 
{¶4} 
Thereafter, the panel accepted the consent-to-discipline agreement, 
including the cited misconduct and jointly recommended sanction.  The panel 
noted in mitigation that respondent had been totally cooperative during the 
disciplinary process, had no record of previous disciplinary violations, and had 
repaid any fees to which the Hohmanns thought they were entitled.  The panel 
additionally considered that respondent and a member of his family had 
experienced serious health concerns during the events at issue.  The board also 
accepted the consent-to-discipline agreement, and thereby found the violations of 
January Term, 2002 
3 
DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 9-102(B)(3) and recommended 
the six-month suspension, stayed on the stated conditions. 
{¶5} 
On review, we concur in the board’s findings of misconduct and 
recommendation.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice 
of law in Ohio for a period of six months.  This sanction is stayed, however, on 
the conditions that he (1) resign if he is currently serving as trustee for any trust 
and not serve as a trustee, (2) refrain from violation of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility, and (3) timely pay the costs assessed for the disciplinary 
proceeding.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, Jill M. Snitcher McQuain, Assistant Bar 
Counsel, Joseph R. Cook and Michael J. Hardesty, for relator. 
 
Carlile, Patchen & Murphy, L.L.P., and H. Ritchey Hollenbaugh, for 
respondent.