Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilcox

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. Wilcox, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5264.] 
 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-5264 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WILCOX. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilcox,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5264.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Prolonged failure to respond to repeated inquiries from 
disciplinary 
authority—One-year 
suspension 
with 
conditions 
for 
reinstatement. 
(No. 2014-0546—Submitted May 28, 2014—Decided December 4, 2014.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-046. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jeffrey Jon Wilcox of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, 
Attorney Registration No. 0056288, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1991.  In November 2011, we suspended him for failing to register, and in 
December 2013, we suspended him for failing to comply with the continuing-
legal-education requirements in Gov.Bar R. X.  In re Attorney Registration 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Suspension of Wilcox, 130 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2011-Ohio-5627, 956 N.E.2d 310; In 
re Wilcox, 137 Ohio St.3d 1428, 2013-Ohio-5466, 998 N.E.2d 1182.  These 
suspensions remain in effect. 
{¶ 2} In August 2013, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Wilcox with 
professional misconduct, mostly for repeatedly failing to respond to grievances 
filed against him.  The parties entered into stipulations of fact and of rule 
violations, and they jointly recommended that Wilcox serve a one-year 
suspension, with conditions for reinstatement, and a one-year period of monitored 
probation upon reinstatement.  Wilcox did not appear for the three-member panel 
hearing of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline in January 
2014, but he submitted documentation indicating that he had completed several 
treatment programs for alcoholism in 2013 and was residing in Wisconsin.  The 
panel issued a report adopting the stipulated rule violations, except for the charge 
under Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), which relator had 
dismissed at the hearing.  The panel also agreed with the parties’ recommended 
sanction but added another condition for reinstatement.  The board adopted the 
panel’s report in its entirety, and no party has filed objections to the board’s 
recommendation. 
{¶ 3} Upon our review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings and 
agree that the board’s recommended sanction is appropriate in this case. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} In 2011 and 2012, relator received grievances against Wilcox 
involving three matters.  In the first matter, Wilcox had failed to notify a 
domestic-relations court of his attorney-registration suspension.  In the second 
matter, a former client expressed dissatisfaction with Wilcox’s representation and 
stated that Wilcox had failed to return his file, although he refunded the retainer.  
In the third matter, Wilcox represented a tenant in a landlord-tenant lawsuit, 
January Term, 2014 
 
3
agreeing on the day of the scheduled trial to a verbal settlement with the landlord.  
Wilcox was supposed to reduce the agreement to writing, but he failed to follow 
through and never sent the landlord a copy.  Ultimately, the landlord’s case was 
dismissed for failure to prosecute, and the landlord could not later locate the 
tenant to serve him with a new lawsuit. 
{¶ 5} In January through March 2012, relator sent Wilcox a series of 
letters regarding each of these grievances.  Relator sent the letters to his office and 
home addresses by certified and regular mail.  Wilcox signed for many of the 
letters, but some of them were returned to relator as “unclaimed.”  Despite 
relator’s warnings that failure to timely reply could lead to disciplinary action, 
Wilcox did not respond to any of relator’s inquiries. 
{¶ 6} In April 2012, relator subpoenaed Wilcox to appear for a 
deposition.  At that point, Wilcox contacted relator and stated that he was being 
treated at an inpatient facility in Newark, Ohio, and he requested that relator 
resend the letters of inquiry to his home address.  As instructed, relator resent the 
letters to Wilcox’s home address by certified mail.  But two letters were returned 
as unclaimed, and relator did not receive a signed certified receipt for the third 
letter.  Still without a response by May 2012, relator sent Wilcox additional letters 
to his home address and to the treatment center.  The letters addressed to the 
treatment center were returned to relator because Wilcox had left the facility. 
{¶ 7} In July 2012, the Lakewood Municipal Court sentenced Wilcox to 
180 days in jail for violating conditions of his probation.  The probation had been 
imposed for convictions of operating a vehicle under the influence, failing to stop 
after an accident, and failing to drive in marked lanes.  Relator subsequently 
hand-delivered a letter of inquiry regarding all three of the grievances to Wilcox 
in the Cuyahoga County jail.  In response, Wilcox requested an extension of time 
to reply until he was released, but by December 2012, relator had not heard from 
him. Relator then sent additional letters to the jail and to Wilcox’s home, but the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
letter to the jail was returned because Wilcox had been released.  In January 2013, 
relator twice hand-delivered letters to Wilcox’s residence, but he did not answer 
either letter. 
{¶ 8} Six months later, in July 2013, Wilcox finally responded to 
relator’s inquiries.  He informed relator that he had been battling alcoholism and 
other untreated mental-health conditions for almost two years and at that point, he 
was undergoing inpatient treatment at a facility in Wisconsin.  In August 2013, 
relator filed a formal complaint against Wilcox, who answered and thereafter 
participated in the disciplinary process.  Although he did not appear for the 
January 2014 panel hearing, he submitted letters from his counselors in Wisconsin 
indicating that he had completed a 30-day inpatient treatment program and a 90-
day residential treatment program and that he was living in a “sober living 
facility.” 
{¶ 9} Based on this conduct, the parties stipulated and the board found 
that Wilcox violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly 
failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during 
an investigation) and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a 
lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation).  We concur in these 
findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several 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 
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.  However, because each 
January Term, 2014 
 
5
disciplinary case is unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B) and may take into account all relevant factors in determining 
which sanction to impose. 
Aggravating and mitigating factors 
{¶ 11} The parties stipulated, and the board agreed, that the following 
aggravating factors are present:  (1) prior discipline, (2) a pattern of misconduct, 
and (3) lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg.10(B)(1)(a), (c), and (e).  In mitigation, the parties stipulated and the 
board agreed that Wilcox lacked a dishonest or selfish motive, that he had made 
an effort at restitution, and that he has been subject to other penalties, namely, the 
jail time for his probation violation.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b), (c), and 
(f).  We concur in these findings, although we give the fact that Wilcox spent time 
in jail little mitigating value.  His jail sentence was for criminal conduct and 
probation violations unrelated to most of the underlying professional misconduct 
here, i.e., failure to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation. 
Applicable precedent 
{¶ 12} As the board notes, while we have often publicly reprimanded 
attorneys for failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation, we have also held 
that in some cases, an attorney’s lack of cooperation, in and of itself, may warrant 
an actual suspension.  For example, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Hofelich, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 14, 2007-Ohio-4269, 873 N.E.2d 821, the attorney failed to respond to 
relator’s numerous inquiries regarding a grievance filed against the attorney, and 
he failed to appear for a deposition requested by relator.  Id. at ¶ 3-9.  We found 
that the attorney’s “pugnacious refusal” to respond to disciplinary counsel’s 
repeated inquiries over a year-long period “led relator’s staff and the panel 
members to devote many hours to an investigation that could and should have 
been resolved much more quickly and at much less cost.”  Id. at ¶ 16.  With the 
presence of only one mitigating factor—no prior discipline—we determined that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
the attorney’s disregard for the disciplinary process called into question his fitness 
to serve clients, and we therefore suspended him for six months.  Id. 
{¶ 13} In Cleveland Bar Assn. v. James, 109 Ohio St.3d 310, 2006-Ohio-
2424, 847 N.E.2d 438, the attorney not only failed to respond to a disciplinary 
authority’s repeated inquiries regarding a grievance, but he also did not participate 
in the process after relator filed its complaint.  We concluded that the attorney’s 
“utter lack of cooperation” in the disciplinary process was “disrespectful to the 
legal profession and to respondent’s colleagues in his community, and it call[ed] 
into doubt respondent’s fitness to serve other clients or potential clients.”  Id. at 
¶ 9.  Based on these factors, and the fact that the attorney was also under an 
attorney-registration suspension, we issued a one-year suspension.  Id. at ¶ 9-11. 
{¶ 14} Here, Wilcox failed to respond to relator’s inquiries regarding 
three separate grievances for approximately 18 months, and he spent portions of 
that time period in jail and treatment facilities.  As in Hofelich and James, his 
conduct calls into question his fitness to serve clients, and an actual suspension is 
warranted.  Additionally, Wilcox’s misconduct was more extensive than that in 
Hofelich, and more aggravating factors exist here than in Hofelich, including prior 
discipline.  Therefore, a harsher sanction than in Hofelich is appropriate.  
Accordingly, we agree with the sanction recommended by the board.  A one-year 
suspension with stringent conditions on reinstatement and a one-year period of 
monitored probation upon reinstatement should adequately protect the public 
from any possible future harm. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 15} Having reviewed the record and the aggravating and mitigating 
factors and having considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, we 
adopt the board’s recommended sanction.  Jeffrey Jon Wilcox is hereby 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, with reinstatement 
contingent on the following conditions: Wilcox must (1) submit proof that he has 
January Term, 2014 
 
7
established a contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and 
participated in the OLAP program as recommended by his OLAP counselor, (2) 
submit proof that he has continued to make regular visits to his treating mental-
health professionals at the frequency recommended by those professionals, (3) 
submit an evaluation by an OLAP-designated independent and qualified 
healthcare professional regarding his mental health and the propriety of his 
reinstatement, (4) submit proof that his treating mental-health professional is of 
the opinion that he is fit to practice law, and (5) refrain from further misconduct 
during his suspension.  Upon reinstatement, Wilcox shall serve a one-year period 
of monitored probation.  Costs are taxed to Wilcox. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and 
FRENCH, JJ., concur. 
O’NEILL, J., dissents and would indefinitely suspend the respondent. 
_________________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Bruce T. Davis, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Jeffrey Jon Wilcox, pro se. 
_________________________