Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Coleman

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. Coleman, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2489.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-2489 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. COLEMAN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Coleman, Slip Opinion  
No. 2015-Ohio-2489.] 
Attorney misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including 
failing to hold the property of client separate from the lawyer’s property 
and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation—Two-year suspension, with 18 months stayed on 
conditions. 
(No. 2014-2148—Submitted February 4, 2015—Decided June 25, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2014-017. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Marcus Edward Coleman of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0083164, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2008.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
We suspended his license to practice on November 1, 2011, for his failure to 
register as an attorney for the 2011-to-2013 biennium, but we reinstated it the next 
day.  See In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Coleman, 130 Ohio St.3d 
1420, 2011-Ohio-5627, 956 N.E.2d 310. 
{¶ 2} On March 3, 2014, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint 
with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline1 alleging that 
Coleman had commingled personal funds with those belonging to his client, 
James F. Love, falsely assured Love that his funds were held in trust, failed to 
maintain adequate records of client funds in his possession, and failed to reconcile 
his client trust account on a monthly basis. 
{¶ 3} The parties submitted stipulated facts, rule violations, aggravating 
and mitigating factors, and exhibits.  After a hearing, a panel of the board issued a 
report in which it adopted the parties’ stipulations and recommended that 
Coleman be suspended from the practice of law for two years with 18 months 
stayed.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but 
recommended that Coleman be suspended for two years, all stayed on conditions. 
{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but 
find that a two-year suspension with 18 months stayed on conditions is the 
appropriate sanction for Coleman’s misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} In April 2010, Love hired Coleman to represent him in a civil 
matter.  Love later gave Coleman $18,000 to purchase stocks at his direction.  
Coleman accepted the investment funds and deposited them into his personal 
account.  He soon discovered that because Love was incarcerated, he would need 
to establish a trust before he could set up the online trading account to facilitate 
Love’s desired investments. 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
{¶ 6} While Coleman worked on the trust, he began to misappropriate 
Love’s funds.  After he deposited fees from his court-appointed work to restore 
the misappropriated funds, he transferred the entire $18,000 to a newly 
established client trust account.  But he again began misappropriating the funds, 
and by June 2011, he had misappropriated $16,167.  In October 2011, he closed 
his client trust account.  Coleman assured Love that the money remained in his 
trust account, and when Love directed him to make several disbursements, he 
made them from his personal funds. 
{¶ 7} By late 2011, Love had trouble communicating with Coleman and 
noticed that his requested disbursements were made with money orders and 
cashier’s checks rather than checks drawn on Coleman’s client trust account.  On 
February 5, 2012, he asked Coleman to return the $13,066 that should have 
remained in his client trust account.  Coleman later met with Love and falsely 
stated that the funds remained in his client trust account, gave him a newly 
created ledger to account for the funds, and tried to persuade Love not to fire him.  
After the meeting, Love again requested that Coleman return his money.  
Coleman delivered a $14,112 check to Love’s criminal attorney on April 30, 
2012, but he knew that he did not have the funds in his account to cover the 
check; in fact, his account was overdrawn.  Coleman asked Love’s attorney not to 
cash the check until Coleman told him that there were sufficient funds in the 
account.  Coleman was never able to deposit sufficient funds to cover the check, 
and the check was never cashed.  Instead, Coleman made periodic payment to 
Love beginning in July 2012.  By March 22, 2014, he had made full restitution to 
Love. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the board found that Coleman’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold the property of clients in 
an interest-bearing client trust account, separate from the lawyer’s own property), 
1.15(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for each client on whose behalf 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
funds are held, setting forth the name of the client; the date, amount, and source of 
all funds received on behalf of the client; the date, amount, payee, and purpose of 
each disbursement made on behalf of the client; and the current balance for the 
client), 1.15(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for each client trust 
account, setting forth the name of the account; the date, amount, and client 
affected by each credit and debit; and the balance in the account), 1.15(a)(5) 
(requiring a lawyer to perform a monthly reconciliation of the funds held in the 
lawyer’s client trust account and to retain a copy of the reconciliation), and 8.4(c) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation). 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} In determining what sanction to recommend to this court, the board 
considered the ethical duties Coleman violated, the presence of aggravating and 
mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B),2 and the sanctions imposed in 
similar cases. 
{¶ 10} As to aggravating factors, the panel and board found that Coleman 
acted with a dishonest or selfish motive by converting $18,000 of his client’s 
money to his own use and that he caused financial harm to Love, whose 
incarceration made him vulnerable.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b) and (h).  
The board also noted that his one-day attorney-registration suspension is 
technically an aggravating factor, but gave it little weight.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(a), Disciplinary Counsel v. Anthony, 138 Ohio St.3d 129, 2013-Ohio-
5502, 4 N.E.3d 1006, ¶ 11.  Consistent with the parties’ stipulations, the panel and 
board also found that Coleman’s full disclosure and cooperative attitude toward 
the disciplinary proceedings, and his good character and reputation—particularly 
his work in the Hamilton County Municipal Veterans Court—are mitigating 
                                                 
2 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and (2) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
factors.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d) and (e).  Moreover, the panel and 
board noted that Coleman has applied for several evening teaching positions to 
diversify his income stream and has found a mentor willing to assist him in his 
office management. 
{¶ 11} Relator urged the panel to impose a two-year suspension with six 
months stayed for Coleman’s misconduct.  In contrast, Coleman argued in favor 
of a two-year fully stayed suspension.  The panel and board examined several 
cases cited by the parties and found Disciplinary Counsel v. Edwards, 134 Ohio 
St.3d 271, 2012-Ohio-5643, 981 N.E.2d 857, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Simon-
Seymour, 131 Ohio St.3d 161, 2012-Ohio-114, 962 N.E.2d 309, to be most 
instructive. 
{¶ 12} Steve Edwards misappropriated $69,500 from his client trust 
account while experiencing severe financial and marital difficulties.  Edwards at  
¶ 1, 14.  He began making restitution before disciplinary counsel initiated his 
investigation and after his conduct came to light, sought the assistance of the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), which resulted in a mental-illness 
diagnosis.  Id. at ¶ 11, 13.  Citing an abundance of mitigating factors—including 
Edwards’s mental disability and his personal struggles—we suspended him from 
the practice of law for two years but stayed the entire suspension on the 
conditions that he continue to attend mental-health counseling and remain in 
compliance with his OLAP contract.  Id. at ¶ 15-16, 20. 
{¶ 13} Christine 
Simon-Seymour 
neglected 
a 
probate 
matter, 
misappropriated funds that belonged to the estate, failed to maintain adequate 
records of client funds entrusted to her, failed to perform a monthly 
reconciliations of her trust account, and made false statements to the probate 
court.  Simon-Seymour at ¶ 3-6.  Although she had engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct over a period of several years, she made a full and free disclosure to 
disciplinary counsel and displayed a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
proceedings.  Id. at ¶ 9.  On these facts, we suspended her from the practice of law 
for two years, with six months stayed on conditions.  Id. at ¶ 12. 
{¶ 14} Here, the panel and board were moved by the personal hardships 
that Coleman faced at the time of his misconduct.  He testified that he was a 
single parent raising his daughter and two nephews without any outside financial 
support.  Due to changes in the Hamilton County Public Defender’s Office 
appointment procedures, his caseload decreased from 15 to 20 appointments to 1 
to 3 appointments per month.  After he and the children were evicted from their 
home, they lived with a friend for approximately six months.  Coleman explained 
that during that time, he misappropriated Love’s funds to pay for his family’s day-
to-day living expenses.  He stated that he would have made do without using 
Love’s money if he had been on his own but he did not want to subject the 
children in his care to that type of hardship. 
{¶ 15} While acknowledging that Coleman did not have a mental illness 
or suffer from a chemical dependency, the panel and board nonetheless found that 
the extenuating circumstances in his personal life should be afforded some 
mitigating effect.  The panel was unwilling to recommend a fully stayed 
suspension as was imposed in Edwards.  It also distinguished Simon-Seymour—in 
which we imposed a two-year suspension with just six months stayed—on the 
grounds that the attorney in that case had engaged in additional misconduct not 
present in this case and had consented to the discipline, thereby preventing the 
panel from thoroughly vetting the case at a full hearing.  The panel, therefore, 
recommended that we impose a two-year suspension with 18 months stayed.  The 
board, in contrast, recommended that the entire two years be stayed on the 
conditions that Coleman work with a law-practice monitor approved by relator for 
the term of the stayed suspension and that he engage in no further misconduct.  
Neither party has objected to the board’s recommendation. 
January Term, 2015 
 
7
{¶ 16} Having reviewed the record, we adopt the board’s findings of fact 
and conclusions of law.  But we agree with the panel that an actual suspension 
from the practice of law is warranted in this case. 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, Marcus Edward Coleman is suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for two years with 18 months stayed on the conditions that 
he work with a law-practice monitor approved by relator for the duration of the 
stayed suspension and engage in no further misconduct.  If Coleman fails to 
comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay shall be lifted, and he will serve 
the full two-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Coleman. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, 
JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER and O’NEILL, JJ., dissent and would impose a suspension of two 
years with the entire term stayed. 
__________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Donald M. Scheetz, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Richard Jay Goldberg, for respondent. 
______________________