Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Murraine

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. Murraine, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5795.] 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-5795 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MURRAINE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Murraine,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5795.] 
Attorney misconduct—Consent to discipline—Misuse of client trust account—
One-year stayed suspension. 
(No. 2011-1042—Submitted August 8, 2011—Decided November 17, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-001. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Fitzgerald Terrance Murraine of Arlington, Texas, Attorney 
Registration No. 0073209, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2001.1  
Murraine’s license to practice law was suspended on December 23, 2009, for 
failure to comply with the continuing legal education (“CLE”) requirements of 
Gov.Bar R. X for the 2005, 2007, and 2009 reporting periods.  In re Continuing 
                                                 
1 It appears that Murraine is also licensed to practice law in Maryland and Pennsylvania, although 
his registrations are inactive.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Legal Edn. Suspension of Murraine, 124 Ohio St.3d 1402, 2009-Ohio-6833, 918 
N.E.2d 1010.  That suspension remains in effect, and Murraine’s attorney 
registration is currently inactive. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with several 
violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his use of his client 
trust account as a personal checking account.  The parties entered into and timely 
filed a consent-to-discipline agreement pursuant to Section 11 of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  After the 
assigned panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
requested additional information, the parties submitted an amended consent-to-
discipline agreement. 
{¶ 3} The panel and board have recommended that we accept the 
amended consent-to-discipline agreement.  We adopt this recommendation, and 
we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one 
year, with the entire suspension stayed on the condition that he commit no further 
misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} The stipulated facts of this case demonstrate that respondent was 
the Supervisor of Contract Compliance and Special Programs for the city of 
Dayton and also had a small, private legal practice.  In December 2009, Murraine 
and his wife filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.  At that time, Murraine stopped 
using his personal credit union account and began to use his client trust account as 
a personal bank account.  From December 2009 through May 2010, he deposited 
his payroll checks into his client trust account and wrote checks for his personal 
and business expenses against it. 
{¶ 5} Although Murraine commingled personal and client funds in his 
client trust account, there is no evidence that he used client funds to pay his 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
personal expenses.  Nor is there any evidence that he used his client trust account 
in an effort to defraud his creditors.  The parties agree that respondent has 
properly reported all income and debts on his bankruptcy petition. 
{¶ 6} The parties have stipulated, the board has found, and we agree that 
respondent’s use of his client trust account violates Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) 
(requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients in an interest-bearing client trust 
account, separate from the lawyer’s own property), 1.15(b) (permitting a lawyer 
to deposit his or her own funds in a client trust account for the sole purpose of 
paying or obtaining a waiver of bank service charges), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law).  We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
board considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10.  The parties have not stipulated to, and the board has not found, any 
aggravating factors.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a) through (i).  They cite 
several mitigating factors, however, including Murraine’s lack of a prior 
disciplinary record,2 his full and free disclosure and cooperative attitude during 
the disciplinary proceedings, and evidence of his good character and reputation. 
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (e).  The parties also note that none of 
Murraine’s client’s were harmed by his conduct.  He has closed his client trust 
account and relocated to Texas, and he is not currently engaged in the practice of 
law. 
                                                 
2 Gov.Bar R. X(5)(C) prohibits consideration of an attorney’s failure to comply with CLE 
requirements in the imposition of a sanction under Gov.Bar R. V(8). 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} The parties have stipulated that a one-year stayed suspension is the 
appropriate sanction for Murraine’s misconduct.  In their support of this sanction, 
the parties cite Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnston, 121 Ohio St.3d 403, 2009-Ohio-
1432, 904 N.E.2d 892.  In Johnston, we imposed a one-year suspension, all stayed 
on the condition that Johnston serve one year of monitored probation and 
complete six hours of CLE in law-office management and accounting for conduct 
comparable to that of Murraine.  Id. at  ¶ 5-9, 16.  Johnston’s conduct was 
arguably more egregious than Murraine’s in that Johnston overdrew his client 
trust account on 22 separate occasions over a two-year period and bounced a 
check to a client, though he quickly reimbursed the client for the check and the 
associated bank charges.  Id. at ¶ 8-9.  Based upon these factual differences and 
that respondent has relocated to Texas and is not currently practicing law, we 
agree that a one-year stayed suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
{¶ 9} Accordingly, Fitzgerald Terrance Murraine is suspended from the 
practice of law for one year, with the entire suspension stayed on the condition 
that he commit no further misconduct.  The sanction shall not commence until 
Murraine’s current suspension for failure to meet his CLE requirements is 
terminated and he returns to active attorney-registration status.  If he fails to 
comply with the condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and he will serve the 
full one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Murraine. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Heather L. Hissom, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Fitzgerald Terrance Murraine, pro se. 
______________________