Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Roberts

Citation: 1999-Ohio-196

Docket Number: 19990837

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-09-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Roberts, 86 Ohio St.3d 551, 1999-Ohio-196.] 
 
 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROBERTS. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Roberts (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 551.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Converting funds for 
personal use — Blatantly disregarding court orders in litigation prompted 
by the wrongful appropriation of the funds. 
(No. 99-837 — Submitted June 9, 1999 — Decided September 8, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-94. 
 
In October 1995, St. George Bank Limited (“St. George”), an Australian 
limited banking partnership, received a request from a customer to electronically 
transfer the equivalent of $8,225.07 in United States currency to the Kentucky 
bank account of respondent, Thomas Wayne Roberts of Erlanger, Kentucky, 
Attorney Registration No. 0039832.  St. George mistakenly transferred $822,507 
instead of $8,225.07 to respondent’s account, which was his attorney trust account.  
Shortly thereafter, respondent withdrew all of the incorrectly transferred funds 
from his account and after taking $8,000 in cash for himself, purchased cashier’s 
checks payable to various individuals and companies, including mortgage and 
credit card companies.  St. George discovered its mistake, and in November 1995, 
it demanded that respondent refund the erroneously transferred funds. 
 
After respondent refused to return the funds, St. George filed suit in 
Kentucky.  In February 1996, the Kentucky court entered judgment in favor of St. 
George and against respondent in the amount of $814,281.93 plus interest.  The 
Kentucky court found that respondent had converted St. George’s funds by 
wrongfully exercising dominion and control over the funds exceeding the correct 
transfer.  The Kentucky court also issued a permanent injunction precluding 
respondent, his bank, and their agents from transferring any funds and noted that 
 
2 
St. George was entitled to immediate execution of the judgment.  Respondent 
ignored St. George’s discovery requests related to collecting on the judgment, as 
well as a subpoena and a court order compelling production of the requested 
documents.  In May 1996, the Kentucky court found respondent in contempt and 
ordered him to produce the requested documents.  When respondent again failed to 
comply, the Kentucky court issued a bench warrant for his arrest on contempt 
charges.  Respondent, however, fled that court’s jurisdiction. 
 
In February 1996, St. George filed an action in the Hamilton County Court 
of Common Pleas requesting that the court make the Kentucky permanent 
injunction an Ohio judgment.  St. George later filed an amended complaint naming 
additional defendants who had received funds wrongfully converted from St. 
George by respondent.  In August 1996, the Hamilton County court entered a 
default judgment and a permanent injunction against respondent. 
 
On October 13, 1997, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with violating several Disciplinary Rules.  After 
respondent failed to answer, the matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) on 
relator’s motion and amended motion for default judgment and attached exhibits. 
 
The panel found the facts as previously set forth, and further found that 
respondent had been found in contempt of court by the Hamilton County court for 
refusal to respond to discovery requests, and that the Hamilton County court had 
issued a bench warrant for respondent’s arrest for civil contempt.  The panel 
concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal 
conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial 
to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely 
reflecting on lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and 9-102(A) (failing to maintain 
 
3 
client funds in identifiable bank accounts with no funds belonging to lawyer or law 
firm disputed therein).  The panel further found no evidence of mitigation and 
recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law in 
Ohio.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings of the board except those referring to 
respondent’s Hamilton County contempt of court and bench warrant for his arrest.  
While there is evidence of such misconduct in the Kentucky litigation, neither the 
complaint nor the motions for default judgment and attached exhibits support these 
findings for the Hamilton County case. 
 
Nevertheless, we adopt the conclusions and recommendation of the board.  “ 
‘The continuing public confidence in the judicial system and the bar requires that 
the strictest discipline be imposed in misappropriation cases.’ ”  See Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Romaniw (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 462, 464, 700 N.E.2d 858, 859, quoting 
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 
899.  Respondent converted funds to which he was not entitled for his personal use 
and blatantly disregarded court orders in litigation prompted by his wrongful 
appropriation of these funds.  No mitigation circumstances exist, and disbarment is 
the appropriate sanction.  Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.