Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. MacLean

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. MacLean, 106 Ohio St.3d 50, 2005-Ohio-3672.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MACLEAN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. MacLean,  
106 Ohio St.3d 50, 2005-Ohio-3672.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Engaging in practice of law while under suspension 
— Engaging in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice — 
Practicing law in violation of professional regulation — Two-year 
suspension with credit for time served. 
(No. 2004-2072 — Submitted February 16, 2005 — Decided August 3, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-107. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Timothy M. MacLean of Lakewood, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0069346, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1998.  
On December 8, 2003, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged that respondent had 
violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by practicing law after his 
license had been suspended for failure to comply with continuing legal education 
(“CLE”) requirements.  Respondent answered the complaint, admitting all the 
charged misconduct. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline heard the cause and accepted the parties’ stipulated findings of fact and 
misconduct and recommended the parties’ suggested sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} On October 15, 1999, the Commission on Continuing Legal 
Education notified this court that respondent had failed to report his CLE activity 
for the 1997-1998 reporting period, see Gov.Bar R. X(6)(B)(1), and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
recommended a sanction of $150.  On November 3, 1999, we ordered respondent 
to show cause why the sanction should not be imposed, and we sent certified 
notice of our order to the law firm where respondent worked.  Respondent did not 
respond to our order, and on January 20, 2000, we fined respondent $150, to be 
paid within 30 days, again providing certified notice to respondent at his law firm.  
See 88 Ohio St.3d 1401, 1403, 722 N.E.2d 1029. 
{¶ 4} On October 15, 2001, the Commission on Continuing Legal 
Education notified this court that respondent had failed to pay the $150 fine and 
was again in violation of Gov.Bar R. X, this time for failing to report his CLE 
activity for the 1999-2000 reporting period and failing to complete required CLE 
hours for ethics, professionalism, and prevention of substance abuse.  On 
November 16, 2001, we ordered respondent to show cause why we should not 
impose a $250 sanction, again sending certified notice to the law firm where 
respondent worked.  Respondent did not respond to our order, and on April 5, 
2002, we suspended respondent’s license to practice law and imposed the 
additional $250 fine, again providing certified notice of our order.  See In re 
Report of Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn. (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 1414, 766 
N.E.2d 155. 
{¶ 5} The April 5, 2002 order directed respondent to cease all 
appearances on behalf of clients, to stop advising clients and preparing client 
documents, and to notify all clients, all courts in which litigation was pending, 
and opposing counsel of his suspension.  Between September and November 
2002, however, respondent participated in depositions, attended a pretrial 
conference, and obtained the continuance of a trial date while representing the 
plaintiff in a personal-injury case.  On October 31, 2002, opposing counsel in the 
case moved to disqualify respondent, citing his suspended status and failure to 
notify counsel of record.  Respondent immediately ceased practicing law. 
January Term, 2005 
3 
{¶ 6} Based on the stipulations and the panel’s report, the board found 
that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (barring conduct that is prejudicial 
to the administration of justice), 2-110(B)(2) (requiring an attorney representing a 
client before a tribunal to withdraw if the attorney’s continued employment will 
result in the violation of a disciplinary rule), and 3-101(B) (barring an attorney 
from practicing law in any jurisdiction in violation of professional regulations). 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of respondent’s case.  See 
Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievance and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc. Reg.”). 
{¶ 8} The board found no aggravating factors.  Respondent did not have 
a prior disciplinary record.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).  Moreover, respondent 
did not act dishonestly or selfishly in failing to complete CLE and properly report 
his CLE record.  As a comparatively new attorney, he simply did not pay attention 
to the CLE requirements and realized too late the consequences of his neglect.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b). 
{¶ 9} Respondent was also cooperative and forthright in the disciplinary 
proceedings.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d).  Without attempting to excuse his 
misconduct, respondent apologetically explained that he did not actually receive 
our orders, perhaps because of the way mail was distributed at his law firm.  The 
board observed that once respondent realized that his license had been suspended, 
he immediately stopped practicing law.  Finally, the board was impressed that 
respondent’s law firm continued to employ him as a law clerk during his 
suspension. 
{¶ 10} Consistent with the parties’ suggested sanction and the panel’s 
recommendation, the board recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
practice of law for two years and that he be credited for time actually served 
under the suspension ordered on April 5, 2002.  The board further recommended 
that respondent be considered eligible to immediately apply for reinstatement 
upon fulfilling all the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X. 
{¶ 11} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 
2-110(B)(2), and 3-101(B), as found by the board.  We also agree that a two-year 
suspension, with credit for time actually served under the suspension ordered on 
April 5, 2002, is appropriate. 
{¶ 12} Respondent inadvertently neglected his CLE obligations due to 
inexperience.  In a similar case, Disciplinary Counsel v. Carson (2001), 93 Ohio 
St.3d 137, 753 N.E.2d 172, we suspended another attorney for two years, staying 
one year and allowing credit for the year that he had ceased practicing on his own, 
because he had practiced while his license was under suspension for CLE 
noncompliance.  That attorney had failed to realize, in part due to alcohol 
dependence, that he could not return to practice after paying his sanction without 
reapplying and readmission. 
{¶ 13} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for two years; however, he is credited for time actually served under 
the suspension of April 5, 2002.  Respondent is thus immediately eligible to apply 
for reinstatement to the practice of law in Ohio by fulfilling all relevant 
reinstatement requirements, including Gov.Bar R. V(10) and X(7).  Costs are 
taxed to the respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
January Term, 2005 
5 
 
Timothy Michael MacLean, pro se. 
_____________________