Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Truax

Citation: 2016-Ohio-7334

Docket Number: 2016-0856

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Truax, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-7334.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-7334 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. TRUAX. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Truax, Slip Opinion No.  
2016-Ohio-7334.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct—
Conditionally stayed six-month suspension. 
(No. 2016-0856—Submitted July 13, 2016—Decided October 18, 2016.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2015-080. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, William Henry Truax Jr. of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0001923, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1976.  In 
December 2015, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Truax with professional 
misconduct arising from his misuse of a client’s funds in his trust account. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} The Board of Professional Conduct considered the cause on the 
parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  See Gov.Bar R. V(16).  In the agreement, 
Truax admitted that after depositing a client’s retainer into his trust account, he 
withdrew $1,452.50 in unearned legal fees for his own personal use.  Truax also 
overdrew the account by $14.78.  After relator commenced an investigation, Truax 
informed the client that he had converted a portion of her retainer and he offered to 
refund her money.  The client, however, chose to allow Truax to continue with his 
representation and deduct the costs of his legal services from the amount that he 
had converted.  Truax then completed his representation of the client without 
further incident.  The parties stipulate that Truax’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit advance legal fees and expenses into a client 
trust account, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses 
incurred). 
{¶ 3} In their agreement, the parties also stipulate that no aggravating 
factors are applicable to this case and that mitigating factors include the absence of 
a prior disciplinary record, the lack of a dishonest motive, a timely and good-faith 
effort to make restitution, and a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary 
proceedings.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) through (4).  As a sanction, the parties 
recommend that Truax serve a stayed six-month suspension. 
{¶ 4} The board found that the consent-to-discipline agreement conforms to 
the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(16), and it recommends that we adopt the 
agreement in its entirety.  In support of this recommendation, the parties and the 
board cite Disciplinary Counsel v. Vivyan, 125 Ohio St.3d 12, 2010-Ohio-650, 925 
N.E.2d 947.  In that case, an attorney withdrew $1,535 in client funds to which he 
was not entitled from his trust account.  Mitigating factors included the absence of 
prior discipline in an almost 40-year legal career, cooperation in the disciplinary 
process, and timely restitution.  We noted that under such circumstances, the 
“standard disposition” is a conditionally stayed six-month suspension.  Id. at ¶ 14. 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
{¶ 5} We agree with the parties and the board that Truax’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c), that Vivyan is relevant precedent, and that a similar sanction 
is warranted here.  Accordingly, we adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline 
agreement. 
{¶ 6} William Henry Truax Jr. is hereby suspended from the practice of law 
for six months, all stayed on the condition that he engage in no further misconduct.  
If Truax violates the condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will be 
suspended for the full six months.  Costs are taxed to Truax. 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and 
FRENCH, JJ., concur. 
O’NEILL, J., dissents and would publicly reprimand respondent. 
_________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, Chief 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
William Henry Truax Jr., pro se. 
_________________