Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Underwood

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Underwood, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-3118.] 
 
 
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-3118 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. UNDERWOOD. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Underwood,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-3118.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Trust-account and fee-related violations—Consent to 
discipline—One-year suspension, all stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2012-1709—Submitted February 6, 2013—Decided July 18, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-051. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Arica Lynn Underwood of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0067664, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997.  
On July 16, 2012, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Underwood with 
professional misconduct related to one client matter.  The charges against 
Underwood included failing to maintain a record of her client trust account, 
failing to deposit fees and expenses paid in advance into her trust account, failing 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
to refund an unearned fee to her client upon her withdrawing from representation, 
knowingly disobeying a court order, engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice, and engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on her 
fitness to practice law. 
{¶ 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. 
{¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Underwood stipulates to 
the facts alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that her conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for each client on 
whose behalf funds are held), 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit advance legal 
fees and expenses into a client trust account, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only 
as fees are earned or expenses incurred), 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  Relator has agreed to the dismissal of the 
alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly refund 
any unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment) and 3.4(c) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of 
a tribunal). 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that the fact that Underwood engaged in 
multiple offenses is an aggravating factor.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d).  As 
for mitigation, the parties note the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the 
payment of restitution to her client, Underwood’s cooperative attitude toward the 
disciplinary proceedings, and the imposition of another sanction from the court by 
finding her in contempt.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), (d), and (f).  
Based upon these factors, the parties stipulate that a one-year suspension, stayed 
in its entirety upon the condition that Underwood complete, in addition to the 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
general requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, at least six hours of continuing legal 
education in law-office management within six months of any disciplinary order 
issued in this case. 
{¶ 5} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline 
agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and recommend that we adopt the 
agreement in its entirety. 
{¶ 6} We agree that Underwood violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 1.15(c), 
8.4(d), and 8.4(h) and, as stated in the parties’ agreement, that this conduct 
warrants a one-year suspension, stayed in its entirety. Therefore, we adopt the 
parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, and we dismiss the charged violations of 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e) and 3.4(c). 
{¶ 7} Accordingly, Underwood is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law for a period of one year, but the suspension is stayed in its entirety upon the 
conditions that Underwood engage in no further misconduct and that she 
complete, in addition to the general requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, at least six 
hours of continuing legal education in law-office management within six months 
of this order.  If Underwood fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the 
stay will be lifted, and Underwood will serve the entire one-year suspension.  
Costs are taxed to Underwood. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen Osmond, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Alvin E. Mathews Jr., for respondent. 
________________________