Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Washington

Citation: 2006-Ohio-2423

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Washington, 109 Ohio St.3d 308, 2006-Ohio-2423.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. WASHINGTON. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Washington,  
109 Ohio St.3d 308, 2006-Ohio-2423.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, 
dishonesty, or misrepresentation — Charging excessive fees — Failing to 
maintain separate account — Two-year suspension, with 18 months stayed 
on conditions. 
(No. 2005-2356 — Submitted February 8, 2006 — Decided May 31, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-025. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, David Samuel Washington Jr. of Cincinnati, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0055406, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1991. 
{¶ 2} On April 18, 2005, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with professional misconduct.  Respondent filed 
an answer to the complaint, and a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline held a hearing on the complaint in September 2005.  
The panel then prepared written findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the 
board adopted, as well as a recommendation, which the board modified. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent was a member of the law firm Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & 
Dennis, L.L.P., from 1991 until his resignation on September 14, 2004.  Between 
January 2003 and July 2004, respondent billed multiple insurance-company 
clients of the firm more than $91,000 for work that he did not perform.  On 
November 14, 2003, respondent accepted a $1,000 retainer for the firm from KGF 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Management and then converted the funds for his personal use.  He did the same 
on February 10, 2004, with a $3,000 retainer from Deja Brew. 
{¶ 4} Respondent acknowledged and the board found that respondent 
had thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving fraud, deceit, 
dishonesty, or misrepresentation), 2-106(A) and (B) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
charging a clearly excessive or otherwise illegal fee), and 9-102(A) (requiring a 
lawyer to maintain client funds in a separate, identifiable bank account). 
{¶ 5} The Rendigs firm has returned to its insurance-company clients the 
more than $91,000 that respondent had billed them for work not performed.  The 
firm also deducted $4,000 from respondent’s capital account at the firm to 
reimburse the firm for the retainers that respondent converted to his own use. 
Sanction 
{¶ 6} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  
The aggravating factors cited by the board were respondent’s dishonest or selfish 
motive and his pattern of misconduct over an 18-month period.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(b) and (c).  Mitigating factors included the absence of any prior 
disciplinary record, the payment of full restitution to all victims, respondent’s full 
disclosure and cooperative attitude during the disciplinary process, and 
respondent’s diagnosed cocaine and alcohol dependency, which the board found 
was a primary cause of respondent’s misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), 
(c), (d), and (g). 
{¶ 7} Evidence presented to the panel indicated that respondent had used 
cocaine two or three times a week for two years until September 2004, when he 
entered a 30-day inpatient treatment program.  After successfully completing that 
program, respondent continued to attend outpatient treatment programs, as well as 
January Term, 2006 
3 
Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings.  Scott Mote, from 
the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), testified at the disciplinary 
hearing that respondent had signed a four-year addiction-recovery contract with 
OLAP in 2004, and despite an initial relapse, had successfully completed the first 
11 months of that contract at the time of the disciplinary hearing.  Mote expressed 
confidence that respondent would complete his obligations under the OLAP 
contract, and a psychologist who had treated respondent offered his assessment 
that respondent would continue to be a valuable and productive member of his 
community. 
{¶ 8} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for one year with the entire suspension stayed on conditions.  The 
board recommended, however, that respondent be suspended for one year with 
just six months stayed on conditions. 
{¶ 9} We agree that respondent committed the misconduct described 
above, but we conclude that a longer suspension is warranted.  His misconduct 
extended throughout 2003 and more than half of 2004.  The strong personal and 
professional support system available to respondent, as well as his motivation to 
conquer his addictions, bodes well for a full recovery and a return to a competent 
and ethical legal practice, but a lengthier stayed suspension, together with 
supervision by a monitoring attorney, should ensure that respondent’s misconduct 
will not recur.  Our goal in this and other cases involving attorneys whose 
misconduct was motivated by a drug or alcohol addiction is to tailor the sanction 
to assist and monitor the attorney’s recovery.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Connor, 
105 Ohio St.3d 100, 2004-Ohio-6902, 822 N.E.2d 1235, ¶ 19. 
{¶ 10} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law for two years, with 18 months stayed on the conditions that (1) respondent is 
supervised by a monitoring attorney during the stayed suspension, (2) respondent 
complies with the terms of his OLAP contract through October 2008, and (3) 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
respondent commits no other misconduct.  If respondent fails to meet these 
conditions, the stay shall be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire term as a 
period of actual suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Richard H. Johnson and James K. Rice, for relator. 
 
James N. Perry, for respondent. 
______________________