Case Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Royer

Citation: 2012-Ohio-5147

Docket Number: 2012-0672

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-11-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Royer, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5147.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-5147 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROYER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Royer, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5147.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple violations concerning trust accounts—Neglect 
of entrusted legal matters—One-year suspension, stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2012-0672—Submitted October 23, 2012—Decided November 8, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court No. 11-057. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, George Ronald Royer of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0031392, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1966. 
{¶ 2} In June 2011, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed an amended 
complaint charging Royer with misconduct and violations of the Ohio Code of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct.1  A panel of 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause on 
February 6, 2012, and, based upon the evidence heard and the stipulations of the 
parties, recommended that the board adopt the facts and rule violations as 
stipulated and that Royer be suspended from the practice of law for one year, all 
stayed, and that he serve two years of monitored probation. 
{¶ 3} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and recommended sanction, as do we. 
Stipulated Facts of Misconduct and Rule Violations 
Celestino Matter 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulated that on September 24, 2006, Theresa 
Celestino signed a fee agreement retaining Royer in connection with a medical-
malpractice claim and gave him a cashier’s check in the amount of $3,000 for his 
services.  Royer did not deposit this check or any subsequent payments made by 
Celestino into his client trust account prior to earning the fee, in violation of DR 
9-102(A) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) and (c) (requiring a lawyer to hold property of 
clients in an interest-bearing client trust account, separate from the lawyer’s own 
property, and to deposit into a client trust account legal fees and expenses that 
have been paid in advance). 
{¶ 5} Celestino also paid Royer an additional $4,500 for costs associated 
with pursuing her malpractice claim.  Royer  failed to maintain records to account 
for these costs and failed to render an account to his client, in violation of a 
number of rules governing professional conduct:  DR 9-102(B)(3) (requiring a 
                                      
1 Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before and 
after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which supersede 
the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Although both the former and 
current rules are cited for the same acts, the allegations comprise a single continuing ethical 
violation. Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31, 
¶ 1, fn. 1. 
 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
lawyer to maintain complete records of all client property coming into the 
lawyer’s possession and render appropriate accounts to each client) and 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for each client on 
whose behalf funds are held), 1.15(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record 
for the lawyer’s client trust account, setting forth the name of the account, the 
date, the amount, and the client affected by each credit and debit and the balance 
in the account), and 1.15(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to maintain all bank 
statements, deposit slips, and canceled checks, if provided by the bank, for each 
bank account).  Royer also lost evidence that was vital to the malpractice claim, in 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to preserve the identity of 
client funds and property and promptly deliver funds or other property that the 
client is entitled to receive). 
Walters Matter 
{¶ 6} On three occasions, Paul Walters retained Royer to file 
applications for a patent with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  On 
March 18, 1999, Royer filed a provisional application for a patent in the patent 
office.  Walters instructed Royer to also prepare and file a patent application that 
would claim priority from the provisional application if filed by March 18, 2000.  
Royer failed to timely file the application and did not advise his client of his 
failure.  He eventually filed the application on November 17, 2000, but because of 
the delay, Walters was not able to claim priority from the previously filed 
provisional application.  Royer admitted neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him 
in violation of DR 6-101(a)(3) (prohibiting neglect of an entrusted legal matter). 
{¶ 7} In September 2001, Walters again retained Royer to prepare and 
file an application for another invention.  Despite Walters’s numerous inquiries 
between November 14, 2001, and October 10, 2006, Royer did not file the 
application until August 28, 2008.  He admitted neglecting a legal matter 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
entrusted to him, in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring 
a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client). 
{¶ 8} On August 24, 2006, Royer filed a design patent application for 
another Walters invention.  A month later, the patent office issued a notice of 
missing parts, but Royer failed to timely respond to it.  Consequently, on May 21, 
2008, the patent office declared the application abandoned.  Royer did not notify 
Walters about the notice or the abandonment.  Instead, he told Walters on 
February 25, 2009, that the application “was taken care of.”  Royer admitted that 
he had neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) 
and Prof.Cond.R. 1.3. 
{¶ 9} In addition, Royer admitted that he had failed to maintain complete 
records of all funds and other properties that he received from Walters and had 
failed to render an appropriate account to him in violation of DR 9-102(B)(3) and 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2), (3), and (4). 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} In considering an appropriate sanction for this misconduct, the 
board weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B).  The board also considered sanctions imposed in similar cases.  See Stark 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 
818, ¶ 16. 
{¶ 11} In aggravation, the board concluded that Royer had committed 
multiple offenses with respect to the Walters matter and that both clients were 
vulnerable in that they relied upon him to represent their interests and to care for 
their funds.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d) and (h). 
{¶ 12} In mitigation, the board took into consideration that Royer had no 
prior disciplinary record during his 46 years of practice and had no dishonest 
motive and that he had made restitution to his clients.  In addition, Royer fully 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
cooperated in the disciplinary process and showed remorse for his conduct.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), and (d). 
{¶ 13} Under similar circumstances, we imposed a six-month suspension 
from the practice of law and stayed the suspension on conditions in a case in 
which the respondent failed to file a divorce complaint for a client and failed to 
deposit the unearned portion of his legal fees from the client into his trust account. 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rutherford, 112 Ohio St.3d 159, 2006-Ohio-6526, 
858 N.E.2d 417.  For two other clients, the respondent had either failed to file a 
bankruptcy petition or filed the petition without the necessary schedules and also 
failed to deposit the unearned fees into his trust account. 
{¶ 14} Similarly, we imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of 
law, with the entire suspension stayed on conditions, for an attorney’s failure to 
act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing two clients and 
failure to promptly deliver the file to a client when her services were terminated.  
Akron Bar Assn. v. Holda, 125 Ohio St.3d 140, 2010-Ohio-1469, 926 N.E.2d 626. 
{¶ 15} This is Royer’s only disciplinary proceeding in a long career.  His 
ethical violations lack a dishonest motive and appear to be the result of bad time 
management and recordkeeping.  Consequently, we suspend Royer from the 
practice of law for one year, with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions 
that he (1) serve a two-year period of monitored probation without further 
violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, (2) retain a certified public 
accountant within two months of the final disposition of his case to review his 
bookkeeping procedures with respect to his client trust account, and (3) provide 
an accountant’s report to the bar association within six months of the final 
disposition showing  compliance with Prof.Cond.R. 1.15.  If Royer fails to 
comply with these conditions, the stay will be revoked and he will serve the full 
one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Royer. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Michael A. Bonfiglio, Bar Counsel; MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, L.L.C., 
and Richard MacMillan; and Cooper & Walinsky and Bradley F. Hubbell, for 
relator. 
Jack P. Viren Jr., for respondent. 
______________________