Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Diehl

Citation: 2005-Ohio-2817

Docket Number: 20042075

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Diehl, 105 Ohio St.3d 469, 2005-Ohio-2817.] 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. DIEHL. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Diehl,  
105 Ohio St.3d 469, 2005-Ohio-2817.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with 18 months stayed on 
conditions — Engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or 
misrepresentation — Intentionally damaging a client during course of 
professional relationship — Failing to disclose to clients attorney’s failure 
to carry professional-liability insurance — Practicing law in violation of 
professional regulations. 
(No. 2004-2075 — Submitted February 16, 2005 — Decided June 22, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-075. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Drew S. Diehl, of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0024802, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1982.  
On August 11, 2003, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged respondent with 
various violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent 
answered the complaint, admitting all allegations.  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ 
joint stipulations of fact and recommended sanction and made findings of 
misconduct and a recommendation, which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 2} In April 2000, respondent agreed to succeed a retiring attorney as 
executor of an estate.  The estate had only one beneficiary. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} On August 20, 2002, respondent received a $5,084.55 check on 
behalf of the estate from the State Auditor’s Office.  The check represented 
unclaimed funds from a Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company bond and was made 
payable to the former executor.  Because respondent had already closed the estate 
checking account, respondent had the former executor endorse the check to 
respondent’s Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (“IOLTA”) account.  On August 
21, 2002, respondent left a telephone message for the beneficiary that he would be 
sending her a check soon. 
{¶ 4} On August 27, 2002, respondent deposited the auditor’s check in 
his IOLTA account.  From September 4, 2002, to November 16, 2002, respondent 
wrote himself 11 checks totaling $5,060 from his IOLTA account.  Respondent 
used the funds to cover personal and business expenses, including his mortgage 
payment, a tuition payment, and office rent. 
{¶ 5} In March 2003, respondent telephoned the former executor’s 
secretary and told her that he intended to send a letter confirming that he had 
converted estate funds.  The secretary promptly reported respondent’s confession 
to relator and then told respondent of her report.  Respondent promptly called 
relator’s counsel and admitted his theft.  On April 1, 2003, respondent borrowed 
money from another attorney, deposited the funds into his IOLTA account, and 
issued a check in the amount of $5,084.55 to the estate beneficiary. 
{¶ 6} In addition to the above violations, respondent also admitted that 
he had failed to register as required by Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A) with the Office of 
Attorney Registration for the biennium periods of September 2001 through 
August 2003 and September 2003 through August 2005.  Also, on January 27, 
2003, respondent was sanctioned for not maintaining, as required by Gov.Bar R. 
X, his continuing-legal-education credits for the 2000-2001 reporting period.  98 
Ohio St.3d 1426, 2003-Ohio-318, 782 N.E.2d 583.  Finally, respondent also failed 
January Term, 2005 
3 
to maintain professional-liability insurance and did not notify his client of this 
fact. 
{¶ 7} Consistent with the stipulations, the board found that respondent 
had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (barring an attorney from engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-104(A) (requiring an 
attorney to disclose to clients that he does not carry professional-liability 
insurance in required amounts), 3-101(B) (barring an attorney from practicing law 
in violation of professional regulations), and 7-101(A)(3) (barring an attorney 
from intentionally prejudicing or damaging a client during the course of the 
professional relationship). 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of respondent’s case.  
See 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.”).  In mitigation, the board found that respondent had no prior 
disciplinary record, had made full and timely restitution to his client, and had 
cooperated fully in the disciplinary process.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), 
and (d).  Respondent has also entered into a three-year contract with the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program, Inc. (“OLAP”) for treatment for his depression, 
which the parties stipulated had contributed to respondent’s misconduct.  In 
aggravation, the board found that respondent had acted with a dishonest and 
selfish motive by using client funds to pay his personal expenses.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b). 
{¶ 9} As a sanction for his misconduct, the board recommended, 
consistent with the parties’ stipulations, that respondent receive a two-year 
suspension, with 18 months of the suspension stayed on the conditions that (1) 
respondent comply with all terms of his current and any subsequent OLAP 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
contracts and (2) he be placed on probation during the 18-month stay, in 
accordance with the monitoring and other procedures in Gov.Bar R. V(9). 
{¶ 10} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 
1-104(A), 3-101(B), and 7-101(A)(3) as found by the board.  We also agree that a 
two-year suspension, with 18 months stayed on conditions, is appropriate. 
{¶ 11} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for two years; however, 18 months of this suspension are stayed on 
the conditions that (1) he comply with all terms of his current and any subsequent 
OLAP contracts and (2) he be placed on probation during the 18-month stay in 
accordance with the monitoring and other procedures specified in Gov.Bar R. 
V(9).  If respondent violates the conditions of the stay, the stay shall be lifted, and 
respondent shall serve the entire two-year 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 Ernest F. McAdams Jr., for relator. 
 
Thomas L. Cuni, for respondent. 
______________________