Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. McCord

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. McCord, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3298.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-3298 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. MCCORD. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. McCord, Slip Opinion No.  
2016-Ohio-3298.] 
Attorneys―Misconduct―Failure to maintain client trust account―Failure to 
inform clients of lack of professional liability insurance―Failure to file and 
pay federal income taxes―One-year suspension, all stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2014-1896—Submitted January 27, 2016—Decided June 8, 2016.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2014-062. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Lumumba Touré McCord of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0066968, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1996.  In 
December 2005, we briefly suspended McCord’s license to practice law based on 
his failure to timely register for the 2005-2007 biennium.  In re Attorney 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Registration Suspension of McCord, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 
N.E.2d 671; and In re Reinstatement of McCord, 107 Ohio St.3d 1705, 2006-Ohio-
13, 840 N.E.2d 209. 
{¶ 2} In a three-count complaint filed in September 2014, relator, Columbus 
Bar Association, charged McCord with multiple violations of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct arising from his failure to maintain a client trust account, 
failure to advise his clients that he did not maintain professional liability insurance, 
and his failure to file federal income tax returns for the years 2006 through 2010. 
{¶ 3} In November 2014, relator certified that McCord was in default 
pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. V(6a) (now Gov.Bar R. V(14)), and we imposed an 
interim default suspension on McCord’s license to practice law in Ohio effective 
December 10, 2014.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. McCord, 141 Ohio St.3d 1249, 2014-
Ohio-5407, 21 N.E.2d 1098.  On March 6, 2015, we granted McCord’s motion for 
leave to answer the complaint, agreed to terminate the interim default suspension 
upon conditions, and remanded the case to the Board of Professional Conduct for 
further proceedings.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. McCord, 141 Ohio St.3d 1484, 2015-
Ohio-783, 26 N.E.3d 820.  We reinstated him to the practice of law on April 15, 
2015.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. McCord, 142 Ohio St.3d 1238, 2015-Ohio-1428, 30 
N.E.3d 959. 
{¶ 4} A panel of the board conducted a hearing and found by clear and 
convincing evidence that McCord engaged in some, but not all, of the misconduct 
charged in relator’s complaint and recommended that he be suspended for one year, 
all stayed on conditions.  The board adopted the panel’s report in its entirety.  We 
adopt the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction. 
Count One: Failure to Maintain Client Trust Account 
{¶ 5} McCord admits that he closed his client trust account in 2010 and that 
from that time until approximately May 9, 2013, he deposited unearned client funds 
into his business account.  He testified that in his criminal practice, he treated his 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
fee as “earned upon receipt” in that he immediately started working on the case.  If 
a client was dissatisfied with McCord’s fee or with his work, or if a task was not 
completed, McCord would refund the unearned portion of his fee from funds held 
in his business account. 
{¶ 6} That practice was recognized and approved by the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline in Advisory Opinion 96-4 (June 14, 
1996), which interpreted the former Code of Professional Responsibility and stated, 
“It is proper for a lawyer to enter a flat fee agreement requiring a criminal defendant 
to pay a fixed amount in advance of representation in a criminal matter” and that a 
flat fee “may be deposited into the lawyer’s business account upon receipt,” but 
that it “should not be deemed nonrefundable.”  Id. at syllabus.  But the Rules of 
Professional Conduct, which took effect on February 1, 2007, supersede that 
advisory opinion and the board has recently withdrawn it.  See Advisory Opinion 
2016-1. 
{¶ 7} Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c) requires a lawyer to “deposit into a client trust 
account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance, to be withdrawn 
by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred.”  Although 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3) permits a lawyer to designate that a fee is “earned upon 
receipt” or “nonrefundable,” it also requires the lawyer to advise the client in 
writing that if the lawyer does not complete the representation for any reason, the 
client may be entitled to a refund of all or part of the fee.  See also Advisory Opinion 
2016-1, at 4.  If those conditions are satisfied, then a fee paid in advance is to be 
considered the lawyer’s funds and deposited in a place other than the lawyer’s client 
trust account.  Id. 
{¶ 8} At the hearing, McCord acknowledged that he now understands that 
his past practice of depositing flat fees into his business account without satisfying 
the conditions in Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(d)(3) is no longer acceptable under the rules and 
that he has reopened his client trust account. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 9} Although no clients complained or were harmed by McCord’s 
practice, the parties stipulated and the board found that McCord’s failure to deposit 
client funds into a client trust account violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a). 
Count II:  Professional Liability Insurance 
{¶ 10} McCord did not maintain professional liability insurance prior to 
May 2, 2013, and failed to inform any client of that fact for more than two years.  
No client complained and it appears that no clients were harmed by this failure.  
However, the parties stipulated and the board found that this conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client if the lawyer does not 
maintain professional liability insurance). 
Count III:  Failure to File and Pay Federal Income Taxes 
{¶ 11} McCord was indicted on March 19, 2013, for failing to file income 
tax returns and pay federal income taxes for the calendar years 2006 through 2010.  
He eventually entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to one 
misdemeanor count of willful failure to file a return, supply information, or pay 
income taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7203.  The court accepted the agreement and 
sentenced him to 60 days in jail and one year of supervised release and ordered him 
to pay restitution of $98,908.85.  McCord appealed the decision, but his sentence 
was affirmed. 
{¶ 12} Relator argued and the board agreed that McCord’s misdemeanor 
conviction violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an 
illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness).  
However, the board recommended that three additional alleged violations be 
dismissed. 
{¶ 13} We adopt these findings of fact, agree that McCord’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 1.4(c), and 8.4(b), and dismiss the remaining alleged 
violations. 
 
 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
Sanction 
{¶ 14} The parties stipulated and the board found that McCord’s prior three-
day registration suspension and multiple violations are aggravating factors 
weighing in favor of a greater sanction.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1) and (4).  They 
also found that relevant mitigating factors include McCord’s full and free disclosure 
to the board and cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, the 
imposition of criminal sanctions for his income tax violations, his payments of $300 
per month toward his criminal restitution order, his efforts to correct his accounting 
practices, his admission of responsibility, and the absence of harm to his clients.  
See, e.g., Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(3), (4), and (6).  The board also noted that a Franklin 
County Common Pleas Court judge testified and described McCord as being 
“professionally prepared” and performing “stellar work when representing his 
clients.”  He stated that he was disappointed to learn of McCord’s federal tax issue, 
but that he was confident in McCord’s honesty and ability to perform his duties.  
See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(5). 
{¶ 15} Relator recommended that McCord be suspended from the practice 
of law for one year with six months stayed and that he serve one year of probation.  
In contrast, McCord argued in favor of a six-month fully stayed suspension with 
two years of probation.  The board, however, recommended that McCord be 
suspended from the practice of law for one year, but that we stay the entire 
suspension on the conditions that he (1) comply with all requirements of the Internal 
Revenue Service for the payment of his back taxes, (2) timely pay his current tax 
obligations, and (3) successfully complete a two-year term of probation, during 
which he must complete at least six hours of continuing-legal-education (“CLE”) 
courses in law-office management in addition to the CLE requirements set forth in 
Gov.Bar R. X.  Neither party objects to this recommendation. 
{¶ 16} We have imposed one-year fully stayed suspensions on attorneys 
who have engaged in comparable misconduct.  See Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
Veneziano, 120 Ohio St.3d 451, 2008-Ohio-6789, 900 N.E.2d 185 (imposing a one-
year suspension stayed on conditions on an attorney who not only failed to timely 
file tax returns and pay her own taxes for five years, but also failed to withhold 
federal payroll taxes from her employees’ wages for seven years); Lake Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Ezzone, 102 Ohio St.3d 79, 2004-Ohio-1774, 806 N.E.2d 991 (suspending 
an attorney for one year, all stayed on conditions based on his guilty plea to a 
misdemeanor charge of failure to file a federal income tax return); and Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Hillman, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2016-Ohio-1172, __ N.E.3d __ (imposing a 
one-year stayed suspension on an attorney who was convicted of willfully failing 
to file a federal income tax return and who acknowledged that he also failed to file 
two additional returns).  We recognize that in addition to failing to file income tax 
returns, McCord failed to deposit client funds into a separate client trust account 
and failed to inform his clients that he did not carry professional liability insurance.  
Nonetheless, we agree that a one-year suspension, stayed on conditions, is the 
appropriate sanction for his misconduct. 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, Lumumba Touré McCord is suspended from the 
practice of law for one year, all stayed on the conditions that he (1) comply with all 
requirements of the Internal Revenue Service for the payment of his back taxes, (2) 
timely pay his current tax obligations, (3) successfully complete a two-year term of 
probation, during which he must complete at least six hours of CLE courses in law-
office management in addition to the CLE requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and (4) 
engage in no further misconduct.  If McCord fails to abide by these conditions, the 
stay will be lifted and he will serve the full one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed 
to McCord. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
January Term, 2016 
 
7
Bloomfield & Kempf, L.L.P., and David S. Bloomfield; Barry W. Epstein; 
A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar Counsel, and Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, for 
relator. 
Brehm & Associates, L.P.A., and Eric W. Brehm, for respondent. 
_________________