Case Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gay

Citation: 2018-Ohio-2170

Docket Number: 2017-1413

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2018-06-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gay, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-2170.] 
 
 
 
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. 2018-OHIO-2170 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. GAY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gay, Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-2170.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to properly safeguard client funds in a client trust 
account—Conditionally stayed one-year suspension. 
(No. 2017-1413—Submitted November 21, 2017—Decided June 7, 2018.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2017-003. 
________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, James Arthur Gay, of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0025646, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1979.  We 
indefinitely suspended him from the practice of law in 1994 for misappropriating 
funds from and failing to file an inventory of his father’s probate estate, accepting 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
fees from clients without performing the contracted work, and failing to cooperate 
in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Gay, 68 Ohio 
St.3d 190, 625 N.E.2d 593 (1994).  We reinstated his license to practice law on 
February 27, 2002.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Gay, 94 Ohio St.3d 404, 763 N.E.2d 
585 (2002). 
{¶ 2} In a four-count complaint filed in February 2017, relator, Cleveland 
Metropolitan Bar Association, alleged that Gay violated the Rules of Professional 
Conduct by mismanaging his Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (“IOLTA”) on 
several occasions and by making a personal loan to a client. 
{¶ 3} Based on the parties’ stipulations, a panel of the Board of Professional 
Conduct found by clear and convincing evidence that Gay committed the charged 
rule violations and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for 
one year, fully stayed on conditions.  The board adopted the panel’s report and 
further recommends that the costs of the proceedings be assessed to Gay.  We adopt 
the board’s report in its entirety and suspend Gay from the practice of law for one 
year, fully stayed on conditions. 
Misconduct 
Count I—IOLTA Overdraft 
{¶ 4} On July 21, 2015, Gay disbursed settlement proceeds to two of his 
clients, Carmen Graham and Breonna Crawford, from his IOLTA.  He also 
disbursed $5,747.56 in settlement proceeds to pay his fees and to reimburse himself 
for expenses he had advanced to his clients.  On July 28, 2015, Gay directly 
withdrew $5,747.56 from his IOLTA for the same fees and expenses, causing a 
negative balance in the account.  The next day, he became aware of the overdraft 
and returned the funds he had mistakenly withdrawn.  In response to a letter of 
inquiry from relator, Gay acknowledged that he had mistakenly paid himself twice.  
The parties agreed, and the board found by clear and convincing evidence, that 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
Gay’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring client funds to be properly 
safeguarded in a client trust account). 
Count II—Failure to Properly Manage IOLTA 
{¶ 5} Gay admits that he did not maintain separate ledger sheets for his 
clients.  He also admits that he did not consistently maintain, and have his clients 
sign, disbursement sheets and closing statements.  The parties agreed and the board 
found that Gay’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(c)(2) (requiring a lawyer to 
furnish closing statements that are signed by both the client and the lawyer in 
contingent-fee cases), 1.15(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for each 
client setting forth the date, amount, payee, and purpose of each disbursement made 
on behalf of each client), and 1.15(a)(5) (requiring a lawyer to perform and retain 
a monthly reconciliation of the funds held in the lawyer’s client trust account). 
Count III—Making a Personal Loan to a Client 
{¶ 6} Gay admits that he made a personal loan of $300 to a client, Carmen 
Graham, and repaid himself from the settlement proceeds of Graham’s personal-
injury claim.  The parties agreed and the board found that Gay’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(e) (prohibiting a lawyer from providing financial assistance to a 
client in connection with pending or contemplated litigation). 
Count IV—Failure to Properly Manage IOLTA 
{¶ 7} Gay admits that prior to depositing the settlement proceeds of clients 
Vanessa Cannon and Layvonne Washington in two separate cases, he withdrew 
funds from his IOLTA to pay himself for the work he did in those cases.  The parties 
agreed and the board found that Gay’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a). 
{¶ 8} We agree with the board’s findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 10} The only aggravating factor found by the board was that Gay has a 
prior disciplinary record.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1). 
{¶ 11} The panel found the following mitigating factors: although alcohol 
and depression were involved in Gay’s first disciplinary case, Gay has maintained 
his sobriety such that alcohol was not a factor in this case; Gay had been practicing 
law for 38 years; Gay did not have a dishonest or selfish motive; Gay’s misconduct 
was not intentional but instead was the result of sloppiness and bad recordkeeping; 
Gay made a full and free disclosure to relator and has had a cooperative attitude 
toward these proceedings; no clients were harmed as a result of Gay’s failure to 
deposit settlement checks prior to withdrawing funds or his failure to keep 
appropriate IOLTA records; Gay has taken appropriate action, with the assistance 
of relator, to educate himself in order to prevent further errors with his IOLTA; Gay 
now maintains a general ledger and client ledgers; he understands that he must 
deposit settlement funds prior to withdrawing his fees or disbursing funds to clients; 
he understands that he must perform monthly reconciliations of his IOLTA; he now 
has clients sign disbursement statements; and he understands that he is not 
permitted to make loans to clients and has averred that he will not make loans to 
clients in the future.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(A) and (C)(2) through (4). 
{¶ 12} The board recommends that we impose a fully stayed one-year 
suspension on conditions for Gay’s misconduct.  In support of that 
recommendation, the board examined cases in which we imposed one- or two-year 
suspensions partially or fully stayed on conditions for similar misconduct.  See 
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Royer, 133 Ohio St.3d 545, 2012-Ohio-5147, 979 N.E.2d 329 
(imposing a one-year suspension, stayed on conditions including a two-year period 
of monitored probation, on an attorney for misconduct that was the result of poor 
time management and poor recordkeeping; the attorney had no prior disciplinary 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
record and did not have a dishonest motive); Akron Bar Assn. v. Tomer, 138 Ohio 
St.3d 302, 2013-Ohio-5494, 6 N.E.3d 1133 (imposing a two-year suspension, 
stayed on conditions including a two-year period of monitored probation, on an 
attorney for mismanagement of her IOLTA and submitting false evidence during 
the disciplinary investigation; although the attorney had no prior disciplinary 
record, she engaged in dishonesty during the disciplinary investigation); 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Thompson, 139 Ohio St.3d 452, 2014-Ohio-2482, 12 
N.E.3d 1203 (imposing a two-year suspension with 18 months stayed on 
conditions, including an 18-month period of monitored probation, on an attorney 
for mismanaging and failing to maintain appropriate accounting records for his 
client trust account; the attorney had one prior instance of discipline for similar 
misconduct). 
{¶ 13} We agree with the board that Gay’s misconduct is less severe than 
the misconduct in any of the cases cited above.  Here, it was Gay’s poor 
bookkeeping that caused his violations.  Upon discovery of his errors, Gay 
immediately corrected them and cooperated with relator’s investigation. 
{¶ 14} Having independently reviewed the record, we adopt the board’s 
findings of fact and misconduct and agree that a one-year suspension, stayed in its 
entirety on the conditions recommended by the board, is the appropriate sanction 
in this case. 
{¶ 15} Accordingly, we suspend James Arthur Gay from the practice of law 
for one year, fully stayed on the conditions that he (1) serve a two-year term of 
monitored probation that includes oversight of his office management and IOLTA 
recordkeeping procedures, (2) complete a minimum of six hours of continuing legal 
education, in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, in law-practice 
management, including at least one hour of IOLTA instruction, and (3) engage in 
no further misconduct.  If he fails to comply with any condition of the stay, the stay 
will be lifted and he will serve the full one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Gay. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, 
JJ., concur. 
DEGENARO, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
Heather M. Zirke and Kari L. Burns, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Tyrone E. Reed Co., L.P.A., and Tyrone E. Reed, for respondent. 
_________________