Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Taubman

Citation: 2013-Ohio-3704

Docket Number: 2012-1715

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-09-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Taubman, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-3704.] 
 
 
 
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-3704 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. TAUBMAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Taubman,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-3704.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Negligently withdrawing settlement proceeds held in 
client 
guardianship 
account—Consent-to-discipline—Six-month 
suspension stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2012-1715—Submitted April 23, 2013—Decided September 3, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-046. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Bruce David Taubman of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0001410, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1976.  In 
June 2012, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Taubman with professional 
misconduct for negligently withdrawing settlement proceeds held in a client 
guardianship account for Taubman’s personal use. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11.  In that agreement, Taubman stipulated to the facts as 
alleged in relator’s complaint and agreed that his 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) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law). 
{¶ 3} The parties also stipulated that no aggravating factors exist and that 
the mitigating factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, a timely 
good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of the misconduct, full and free 
disclosure to the board and a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary 
proceedings, and Taubman’s good character or reputation.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), (c), (d), and (e).  The parties further agreed that a stayed six-month 
suspension is the appropriate sanction for Taubman’s misconduct. 
{¶ 4} The board recommended that we adopt the consent-to-discipline 
agreement, but we remanded the matter because Taubman’s affidavit did not 
conform to the requirements of BCGD Proc.Reg. 11(B).  134 Ohio St.3d 1463, 
2013-Ohio-502, 983 N.E.2d 364.  Upon submission of Taubman’s supplemental 
affidavit, the board found that the consent-to-discipline agreement met the 
requirements of our remand order, and the board again recommends that we adopt 
the parties’ agreement.  The board refers to similar disciplinary cases in support of 
its recommendation, including Disciplinary Counsel v. Vivyan, 125 Ohio St.3d 
12, 2010-Ohio-650, 925 N.E.2d 947 (imposing a six-month stayed suspension on 
an attorney who withdrew for his personal use settlement proceeds held in trust 
for a client). 
{¶ 5} We agree that Taubman violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) and 8.4(h) 
and, as stated in the parties’ agreement and as indicated by the cited precedent, 
January Term, 2013 
 
3
that this conduct warrants a stayed six-month suspension.  Therefore, we adopt 
the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement. 
{¶ 6} Accordingly, Taubman is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the condition that 
he commit no further misconduct.  If Taubman fails to comply with the condition 
of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and his license will be suspended for the full six 
months.  Costs are taxed to Taubman. 
 Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Richard S. Koblentz and Kevin R. Marchaza, for respondent. 
________________________