Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Thomas

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. Thomas, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-1582.] 
 
 
 
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-1582 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. THOMAS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Thomas, Slip Opinion  
No. 2016-Ohio-1582.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Attorney convicted of felony theft offenses and 
misdemeanor falsification offenses for misappropriating funds from 
vulnerable, elderly, court-appointed clients and filing false inventories with 
the probate court—Illegal acts that reflect adversely on lawyer’s honesty—
Conduct involving fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation—Conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice—Knowingly making false 
statements to a tribunal—Knowingly offering false evidence—Indefinite 
suspension—Reinstatement conditioned on restitution, substance-abuse 
treatment, and other requirements. 
(No. 2015-1001—Submitted November 17, 2015—Decided April 20, 2016.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the  
Supreme Court, No. 2014-081. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, James William Thomas Jr., formerly of Eaton, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0074051, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
2001.  We suspended Thomas’s license on an interim basis, effective July 22, 2014, 
after he was convicted of two counts of theft and one count of theft from the 
elderly—all felonies committed against individuals for whom he served as a court-
appointed guardian—and three misdemeanor counts of falsification.  See In re 
Thomas, 140 Ohio St.3d 1224, 2014-Ohio-3174, 15 N.E.3d 871. 
{¶ 2} In an October 29, 2014 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, 
charged Thomas with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct 
arising from his felony convictions.  Thomas admitted each of the allegations in his 
answer and entered into joint stipulations of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and 
mitigating factors. 
{¶ 3} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct granted the parties’ 
motion to waive the hearing and adopted the parties’ stipulations.  The panel also 
adopted the parties’ recommendation that Thomas be indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio.  In addition, the panel recommended that Thomas be 
credited for the time served under his interim felony suspension and that his 
reinstatement be conditioned on completion of his term of incarceration, payment 
of restitution, compliance with all terms and conditions of his criminal probation, 
completion of an approved treatment program for substance abuse and addiction, 
and ongoing treatment for his drug addiction.  The board adopted the panel’s 
findings of fact and misconduct, aggravating and mitigating factors, and sanction, 
with some modifications to the requirement for restitution. 
{¶ 4} Following a remand by this court for additional consideration of the 
recommended conditions for Thomas’s reinstatement, the board issued a revised 
recommendation regarding Thomas’s restitution obligation. 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
{¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and its 
recommended sanction, as amended by the board’s supplemental report and 
recommendation.  We do not, however, credit Thomas for the time served under 
his interim felony suspension. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 6} Thomas was charged in an April 28, 2014 bill of information with two 
third-degree-felony counts of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3), one fourth-
degree-felony count of theft from an elderly or disabled person in violation of R.C. 
2913.02(A)(3), and three first-degree-misdemeanor counts of knowingly making a 
false statement or knowingly swearing or affirming the truth of a previously made 
false statement in violation of R.C. 2921.13(A)(10).  Thomas pleaded no contest to 
the charges, which arose out of his theft of funds from four individuals for whom 
he served as a court-appointed guardian and his subsequent attempts to conceal the 
thefts by filing false inventories with the Preble County Probate Court.  He was 
sentenced to a four-and-one-half-year prison term and ordered to make restitution 
of $208,095.15, to be distributed to his former clients as follows: $115,112.75 for 
the benefit of J.S.,1 $72,149.40 for the benefit of E.T., $17,487 for the benefit of 
R.B., and $3,346 for the benefit of K.O. 
{¶ 7} Based on the parties’ stipulations and supporting documents, the 
board found that by misappropriating funds from individuals for whom Thomas 
was appointed to serve as a guardian, he 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), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).  
The board also found that his filing of false inventories with the Preble County 
                                                 
1 The guardian appointed to represent the estate of J.S. settled J.S.’s claims against Thomas and 
received $89,950 from his professional-liability carrier in 2015.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Probate Court to conceal his theft of funds from his wards violated Prof.Cond.R. 
3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of fact or 
law to a tribunal), 3.3(a)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly offering evidence 
that the lawyer knows to be false), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).  No objections have 
been filed. 
{¶ 8} We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
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 set forth in 
Gov.Bar R. V(13)(A) through (C).  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 
Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated and the board found that two aggravating 
factors are present.  Thomas acted with a dishonest or selfish motive by using the 
money that he misappropriated from his wards primarily to maintain his addiction 
to ephedrine and to compensate for the loss of law-practice income occasioned by 
that addiction.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2).  He engaged in multiple offenses, 
stealing funds from at least four of his wards on multiple occasions over a period 
of more than six years and attempting to conceal his theft of those funds by filing 
false inventories with the probate court on at least three occasions.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(B)(4).  In addition to these aggravating factors, we also find that Thomas 
engaged in a pattern of misconduct that harmed vulnerable clients by 
misappropriating more than $200,000 over a period of six years from the wards he 
was court-appointed to protect.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3) and (8). 
{¶ 11} The board also adopted the parties’ stipulations with respect to the 
applicable mitigating factors.  It found that Thomas did not have a prior disciplinary 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
record2 and that he had made a full and free disclosure to the board and 
demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, fully admitting his 
wrongdoing in his answer and in his agreed stipulations.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(1) and (4).  The board accorded mitigating effect to his good character 
and reputation apart from the charged misconduct and to the imposition of other 
penalties and sanctions, including his four-and-one-half-year prison sentence and 
criminal restitution order.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(5) and (6). 
{¶ 12} Consistent with the stipulations, the board also determined that 
Thomas had made a timely, good-faith effort to make restitution or to rectify the 
consequences of his misconduct.  This finding was based on an $89,950 settlement 
paid to the guardian of J.S. by Thomas’s professional-liability-insurance carrier, a 
refund of $1,650 paid by Thomas’s father to two other clients who were not 
identified in these proceedings, and an agreement that Thomas’s father would make 
monthly restitution payments of $750, to be apportioned among the three other 
identified victims of Thomas’s misconduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(3).  We 
reject this finding because the effort to make restitution was not timely and because 
J.S.’s new guardian had to resort to a lawsuit and obtain a default judgment against 
Thomas, ultimately accepting a substantially reduced amount from Thomas’s 
professional-liability-insurance carrier.  Moreover, there is no evidence that 
Thomas has made any effort to make restitution to the other victims of his 
misconduct.  On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that Thomas’s father has 
voluntarily agreed to make restitution payments of $750 per month for two years, 
with the payments to be apportioned to the victims of Thomas’s misconduct.  But 
those payments will only account for $18,000 of Thomas’s court-ordered 
obligation, which currently exceeds $90,000. 
                                                 
2 During the pendency of this action, however, we suspended Thomas’s license to practice based on 
his failure to timely register for the 2015-2016 biennium.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension of 
Thomas, 143 Ohio St.3d 1509, 2015-Ohio-4567, 39 N.E.3d 1277.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
{¶ 13} The board adopted the parties’ stipulation that Thomas’s diagnosis 
of an addiction to ephedrine was a mitigating factor because (1) the addiction 
significantly contributed to his misconduct, (2) he successfully completed a five-
week residential treatment program after his criminal conviction but before his 
sentence, and (3) his addictive behaviors are less likely to recur if he remains in 
recovery. 
{¶ 14} The board recommends that Thomas be indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law with credit for the time he has served under his interim felony 
suspension and that his reinstatement to the practice of law be subject to the 
following conditions:  (1) completion of his period of incarceration, (2) payment of 
restitution for the benefit of E.T. ($72,149.40), R.B. ($17, 487), and K.O. ($3,346), 
(3) compliance with all terms and conditions of his criminal probation, (4) 
successful completion of a substance-abuse and addiction-treatment program 
approved by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), and (5) 
participation in an addiction-treatment program up to and through any attempt to 
seek reinstatement. 
{¶ 15} In support of this sanction, the board cites two cases in which we 
have indefinitely suspended attorneys who misappropriated funds while serving in 
positions of trust.  While serving as a court-appointed guardian, one attorney made 
unauthorized withdrawals of more than $20,000 from his ward’s account, used the 
funds to pay his personal expenses, made false statements in documents filed with 
the probate court, and pleaded guilty to one fifth-degree-felony charge of theft.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Zapor, 127 Ohio St.3d 372, 2010-Ohio-5769, 939 N.E.2d 
1230, ¶ 3-4.  The aggravating and mitigating factors in Zapor were comparable to 
those present here, except that the parties did not stipulate and Zapor failed to prove 
that his alcohol-abuse and gambling problems contributed to his misconduct.  Id. at 
¶ 7-9.  Because he had confessed to the misappropriation, he seemed genuinely 
contrite, and his testimony suggested that he had taken steps to resolve his 
January Term, 2016 
 
7
substance-abuse and gambling problems, we adopted the board’s recommended 
sanction of an indefinite suspension with no credit for time served under his interim 
felony suspension.  Id. at ¶ 12.  We also conditioned his reinstatement on the 
extension of his OLAP contract and his compliance with the terms of that contract.  
Id. 
{¶ 16} And in Disciplinary Counsel v. Anthony, 138 Ohio St.3d 129, 2013-
Ohio-5502, 4 N.E.3d 1006, we indefinitely suspended Anthony for 
misappropriating at least $118,000 from his employer to pay his personal expenses 
and to maintain his gambling addiction.  Id. at ¶ 4.  Although Anthony could not 
demonstrate that his pathological gambling disorder was a mitigating factor 
because he had only begun treatment three months before his disciplinary hearing, 
we nonetheless accorded it some mitigating effect.  Id. at ¶ 13.  That factor, 
combined with his disclosure of his misconduct to the disciplinary board, his 
cooperation in the disciplinary investigation, and his criminal sentence for his 
resulting grand-theft conviction, led us to adopt the board’s recommended sanction 
of an indefinite suspension.  Id. at ¶ 13, 18-19. 
{¶ 17} Having 
considered 
Thomas’s 
misconduct, 
the 
applicable 
aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed for comparable 
misconduct, we agree that the appropriate sanction in this case is an indefinite 
suspension.  But given the magnitude of his theft from the vulnerable people he was 
appointed to protect, his pattern of misconduct over a period of more than six years, 
and his failure to make full restitution, we decline to grant him credit for the time 
served under his interim felony suspension. 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, James William Thomas Jr. is indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio and, in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. 
V(25),  his reinstatement shall be conditioned upon his (1) completion of his period 
of incarceration, (2) payment of restitution for the benefit of former clients E.T. 
($72,149.40), R.B. ($17,487), and K.O. ($3,346) as set forth in the restitution order 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
in his criminal case, (3) compliance with all terms and conditions of his criminal 
probation, (4) successful completion of an OLAP-approved substance-abuse and 
addiction-treatment program, (5) execution of an OLAP contract for a term to be 
determined by OLAP, and (6) full compliance with all treatment recommendations 
of OLAP and his treating professionals.  Costs are taxed to Thomas. 
Judgment accordingly. 
PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LANZINGER and O’NEILL, JJ., dissent and would 
permanently disbar the respondent. 
_________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson, L.P.A., and George D. Jonson, for 
respondent. 
_________________