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

Citation: 2013-Ohio-5041

Docket Number: 2013-0230

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-11-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Wrentmore, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-5041.] 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-5041 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. WRENTMORE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Wrentmore,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-5041.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple disciplinary violations—Misappropriation of 
client funds—Failure to pay for legal-education seminars—Indefinite 
suspension. 
(No. 2013-0230—Submitted April 12, 2013—Decided November 21, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-093. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, James Clarence Wrentmore of Mayfield Heights, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0046779, was admitted to the practice of law in 
Ohio in 1990.  In a six-count amended complaint, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan 
Bar Association, alleged multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct 
relating to his handling of client funds and his failure to pay for five continuing 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
legal education (“CLE”) seminars he attended.  The parties stipulated to numerous 
facts and to four rule violations.  Wrentmore did not stipulate that he engaged in 
conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law or that his conduct 
involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, as charged in the 
amended complaint. 
{¶ 2} Following the hearing, the panel concluded that relator had proven 
all six counts by clear and convincing evidence.  The board agreed with and 
adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of 
an indefinite suspension.  No objections have been filed. 
{¶ 3} Upon our independent review of the record, we adopt the board’s 
findings of fact and misconduct and agree that the appropriate sanction is an 
indefinite suspension. 
Misconduct 
Client-Refund Checks 
{¶ 4} Between May 2006 and July 2010, Wrentmore was successively an 
attorney with two different law firms that represented homeowner associations in 
real-estate matters, including foreclosure cases.  These firms maintained IOLTA 
or client trust accounts for handling client funds.  Wrentmore represented clients 
in litigation, and occasionally courts would return excess funds that had been paid 
in cases on which he served as counsel.  From January 2010 to May 2010, 
Wrentmore received four refund checks, in amounts ranging from $5 to 
$2,644.74.  In each case, he either cashed the check and kept the cash or deposited 
a substantial portion of the check into his personal account and kept a portion in 
cash, thereby failing to notify and promptly deliver the funds to the person having 
a lawful interest in the funds. 
{¶ 5} In the incident that initiated the grievance underlying this case, 
Wrentmore’s legal assistant sent him an e-mail inquiring about a check from the 
clerk of court of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas in the amount of 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
$2,644.74 that she had earlier passed on to him.  This check was a refund payment 
in a case in which Wrentmore had represented a party while with his prior law 
firm.  He responded with an e-mail on June 8, 2010, stating, “I dropped [the 
check] in an envelope and forwarded it,” even though five days earlier, he had 
endorsed the check, taken a portion in cash, and deposited the remainder into his 
personal account.  Ordinarily if a refund check was for a client of the law firm, the 
legal assistant would look up the client number and forward the check to the 
office manager for crediting to the client matter.  If a refund check was not for a 
client of the firm, she would give the check to the attorney whom the check was 
made out to, and the attorney would normally return it to her and tell her where to 
send it. 
{¶ 6} Because it was unusual for an attorney to handle a refund check in 
the manner Wrentmore had, the law firm contacted the clerk’s office of the Lorain 
County Court of Common Pleas to see whether the check had been cashed and 
found that it had been.  The firm also obtained a copy of the back side of the 
check and discovered that Wrentmore had endorsed it and had deposited most of 
the funds into his personal bank account and taken the rest in cash.  The firm 
contacted Wrentmore’s prior firm and verified that that firm had never received 
the refund check.  On July 23, 2010, two partners from his firm confronted 
Wrentmore, and when he could not satisfactorily explain his actions, terminated 
him.  He was escorted back to his office and then was escorted out of the building 
with only his briefcase; he was not permitted to remove any other items from his 
office. 
{¶ 7} The firm’s partner in charge of litigation and Wrentmore’s legal 
assistant extensively searched Wrentmore’s desk and his office looking for other 
refund checks but found no checks, envelopes with large amounts of cash, or 
money other than loose change.  The firm boxed up and shipped Wrentmore’s 
personal effects to his home a few days later.  On July 30, 2010, Wrentmore used 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
cash to purchase three postal money orders that totaled $2,644.74—the amount of 
the refund check—and the next day, he remitted the money orders to the law firm 
where he had worked while representing that client. 
{¶ 8} The president of the firm that had terminated him subsequently 
filed a grievance with relator in September 2010.  During the investigation of the 
grievance, the investigator sent Wrentmore a letter informing him that she had 
initiated a search of Lorain County court records for refund checks made payable 
to him, that she had discovered that he had received and endorsed two other 
checks (one for $111 and one for $857), and that his personal checking account 
number was on those checks.  Those checks, as with the later check for $2,644.74, 
were for cases in which Wrentmore had no longer been representing the clients.  
In the letter, she asked him to explain how he had handled those funds.  He 
claimed in a subsequent conversation with her that he had not cashed other client 
checks and that he did not know anything about those two other checks.  After 
receiving the investigator’s letter, however, Wrentmore on June 27, 2011, used 
cash to purchase postal money orders in the amount of each of the two checks that 
he had negotiated, and mailed the money orders to the firm where he had worked 
while representing those clients, claiming that he had been holding the money “as 
segregated funds” and that “the funds were always safe.” 
{¶ 9} As to a fourth client-refund check in the amount of $5, which 
Wrentmore had cashed, the investigator did not inquire about that at the time she 
questioned him about these two checks because she was not aware of it and 
Wrentmore never apprised her of it when she questioned him.  She later found out 
about that check when she was going through his bank records while investigating 
his other transactions.1 
                                                 
1 On October 8, 2011, Wrentmore purchased a $5 postal money order.  He testified at the 
disciplinary hearing that he sent that money order to the law firm that he had worked for while 
previously representing the client to cover the $5 refund check. 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
CLE Seminars 
{¶ 10} Between April 14, 2011, and April 28, 2011, Wrentmore attended 
five CLE seminars sponsored by the Ohio State Bar Association (“OSBA”).  On 
the first three of those occasions, Wrentmore appeared on the day of the event and 
told OSBA personnel staffing each seminar that he had preregistered and prepaid 
for the seminar.  Although he stated at the disciplinary hearing that he “believed” 
that he had given his debit card number to OSBA staff members for each seminar, 
after each one, the OSBA discovered that its records did not reflect that 
Wrentmore had preregistered or that he had ever paid.  The OSBA sent him a 
separate invoice for each of the three seminars.  These three invoices, totaling 
$845, each stated that he was a “walk-in no payment.”  He did not promptly 
respond to any of these OSBA invoices. 
{¶ 11} On each of the last two of the five occasions, Wrentmore paid the 
seminar fee with a check from his personal checking account.  Both checks, 
amounting to a total of $544, were returned to the OSBA for insufficient funds.  
When apprised of the insufficient funds by the OSBA in a letter that requested 
payment, Wrentmore did not promptly respond.  When he attended the seminars, 
he was working as a golf caddy at a country club.  He stated at the disciplinary 
hearing that he was not paying close attention to his bank-account balance at that 
difficult time in his life when his cash flow was “pretty tight” and claimed that he 
had believed that there were funds in his account to cover the checks. 
{¶ 12} Despite not having paid for the CLE seminars he attended, 
Wrentmore reported at least a portion of the CLE hours to the Supreme Court of 
Ohio’s Commission on Continuing Legal Education in order to receive CLE 
credit for those seminars.  It was only after the OSBA requested that the 
commission revoke those CLE hours for nonpayment, more than nine months 
after he was initially advised of his failure to pay for the first seminar, that 
Wrentmore paid for all five seminars with a bank check. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 13} The panel found by clear and convincing evidence that 
Wrentmore’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold 
property of clients in an interest bearing client trust account, separate from the 
lawyer’s own property), 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or 
other property that the client is entitled to receive), 8.1(a) (prohibiting knowingly 
making a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary 
matter), 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely 
reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or 
trustworthiness), and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
{¶ 14} Although Wrentmore stipulated to the first four violations, he did 
not stipulate to the last two.  The panel found that he had misappropriated funds 
from four client-refund checks and committed theft of services when he deprived 
the OSBA, without its consent and by deception, of the money he should have 
paid for the CLE seminars, thereby committing illegal acts for purposes of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b).  The panel found that he had stolen client funds, lied to his 
employer and relator’s investigator, and used the funds for his own benefit, 
thereby violating Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c).  The board adopted the findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation of the panel and recommends that 
Wrentmore be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. 
{¶ 15} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 16} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
January Term, 2013 
7 
 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  
{¶ 17} The parties did not stipulate to a sanction.  The board found 
numerous aggravating factors: a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of 
misconduct, the commission of multiple offenses, a lack of cooperation in the 
disciplinary process, the submission of false statements, a refusal to acknowledge 
the wrongful nature of his conduct, and a failure to make timely restitution.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (i).  The board found three 
mitigating factors: the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the ultimate payment 
of restitution, and cooperation in the proceedings.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (d). 
{¶ 18} We recognize that during disciplinary proceedings, a respondent 
can at times be cooperative and at other times be uncooperative.  But the evidence 
establishes that Wrentmore was less than forthcoming throughout the process, so 
we give little weight to cooperation as a mitigating factor here.  We also note that 
although Wrentmore ultimately paid restitution, he did so for most of the 
incidents only when he found out that relator was aware of his misconduct.  With 
respect to payment to the OSBA, he waited more than nine months after he had 
received the first invoice before he paid for the seminars.  And with respect to the 
former clients’ refund checks, he held some of the funds for more than a year 
before repaying the clients.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c) requires that the 
payment of restitution be timely to be deemed mitigating; we cannot consider 
Wrentmore’s client repayments and the payment to the OSBA to be timely in 
view of the lengthy delays, so we give little weight to that mitigating factor as 
well.  See Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio St.3d 490, 2002-Ohio-2490, 769 
N.E.2d 816, ¶ 21 (“Although [respondent’s] having made restitution provides 
some mitigation, the circumstances surrounding the repayment determine its 
weight” [emphasis sic]). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 19} “Disbarment is the presumptive sanction for an attorney’s 
misappropriation of client funds, but significant mitigating circumstances may 
permit an indefinite suspension.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. McCauley, 114 Ohio 
St.3d 461, 2007-Ohio-4259, 873 N.E.2d 269, ¶ 22.  Here, the board recommends 
an indefinite suspension, in part to allow Wrentmore to complete his contract with 
the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and to continue his counseling 
and treatment for depression. 
{¶ 20} When an attorney has engaged in numerous acts of misconduct in 
converting law-firm funds and there is significant mitigation, we have held that an 
indefinite suspension can be appropriate.  Akron Bar Assn. v. Smithern, 125 Ohio 
St.3d 72, 2010-Ohio-652, 926 N.E.2d 274, ¶ 14.  In Smithern, we indefinitely 
suspended an attorney who converted fees from more than 30 clients totaling 
about $108,000 over a two-year period.  Id. at ¶ 5.  Accord Toledo Bar Assn. v. 
Crossmock, 111 Ohio St.3d 278, 2006-Ohio-5706, 855 N.E.2d 1215, ¶ 3 
(indefinite suspension imposed for attorney’s misappropriation of more than 
$300,000 in law-firm funds over a ten-year period); Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Yajko, 77 Ohio St.3d 385, 386, 389, 674 N.E.2d 684 (1997) (indefinite suspension 
imposed for misappropriating more than $21,000 in law-firm funds on 20 separate 
occasions from 20 clients over a seven-year period).  Although Wrentmore’s 
misconduct was not as frequent as that in Smithern, Crossmock, and Yajko, and 
took place over a shorter time period, and although this case does not involve the 
large amounts of money misappropriated in those cases, we find that his conduct 
and the numerous aggravating factors here are sufficiently substantial so as not to 
distinguish this case from those. 
{¶ 21} We are also troubled by Wrentmore’s continued misrepresentation 
of his intentions and motives regarding his theft of client-refund checks, despite 
clear evidence that he used the funds for his own benefit.  The most telling 
example of this misrepresentation is his continued adherence to his story that the 
January Term, 2013 
9 
 
funds were kept segregated, that he never spent the money, and that he always 
intended to repay the former clients.  The easiest and most logical course for him 
would have been to take the name of the case and case number from the face of 
each check, ask his assistant to track down where the check should go, and then 
have the assistant forward the check.  When directly asked, Wrentmore simply 
could not explain why he did not take those actions. 
{¶ 22} Instead, Wrentmore’s story offered in the disciplinary proceedings 
is that because he did not know who should receive the money, he cashed each 
check or deposited funds in his personal checking account to be withdrawn later, 
then took the cash back to his office and placed it in separate envelopes, which he 
then stored in his desk, presumably to reimburse each former client at some point 
in the future when he would purchase a U.S. postal money order and would either 
mail or hand deliver it to the recipient.  When his personal effects were returned 
to him upon his termination, he claims the envelopes containing the money were 
not there, yet the legal assistant and partner who diligently searched his office 
immediately after his departure found no envelopes stuffed with cash.  This 
scenario at best defies logic, and the evidence refuting his explanation is 
overwhelming. 
{¶ 23} We are equally troubled by his failure to acknowledge his 
deception in seeking access to the seminars with the intent of receiving “free” 
CLE credit.  His explanation lacks credibility, and his self-serving statements and 
misrepresentations are indicative of a calculated attempt to avoid accepting 
responsibility for his misconduct.  We do not countenance such behavior.  See, 
e.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gruttadaurio, 136 Ohio St.3d 283, 2013-
Ohio-3662, 995 N.E.2d 190, ¶ 47, 50-51 (indefinite suspension imposed on 
attorney who committed multiple acts of dishonesty, including making self-
serving statements and misrepresentations in the course of disciplinary 
proceedings). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
{¶ 24} Having weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case 
and having considered the sanctions previously imposed for comparable conduct, 
we adopt the board’s recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension. 
{¶ 25} Accordingly, we indefinitely suspend James Clarence Wrentmore 
from the practice of law.  We condition any future reinstatement on the 
submission of proof that Wrentmore has complied with the requirements of his 
OLAP contract. 
{¶ 26} Costs are taxed to Wrentmore. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Tucker Ellis, L.L.P., and John Q. Lewis, for relator. 
James C. Wrentmore, pro se. 
__________________________