Title: Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Butts

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Butts, 114 Ohio St.3d 472, 2007-Ohio-4265.] 
 
 
MEDINA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BUTTS. 
[Cite as Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Butts, 114 Ohio St.3d 472, 2007-Ohio-4265.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice — Conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s 
fitness to practice law — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Failure 
to properly maintain a client trust account — Six-month stayed 
suspension. 
(No. 2007-0734 — Submitted June 6, 2007 — Decided August 29, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-071. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michael T. Butts of Medina, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0046616, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1990.  On August 7, 
2006, relator, Medina County Bar Association, filed a complaint charging 
respondent with several violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  
Respondent stipulated to violations of the Disciplinary Rules, and a panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline held a hearing on the 
complaint in March 2007.  Based on the stipulated facts and misconduct, and 
other evidence, the panel made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 
recommendation, which the board adopted. 
Stipulated Facts 
{¶ 2} Respondent was employed as an associate attorney in a law firm 
that specialized in personal-injury cases.  The law firm deposited settlement 
funds, insurance proceeds, and client funds into a single Interest on Lawyer Trust 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Account (“IOLTA”) account.  The law firm did not maintain a separate ledger or 
any accounting device to track disbursements for individual clients. 
{¶ 3} Respondent sent letters of protection to creditors and medical 
providers on behalf of a client who had a personal-injury claim.  Respondent 
settled the claim for $16,000 and deposited that amount into his employer’s 
IOLTA account.  On January 5, 2004, respondent entered into an agreement with 
his client to distribute the settlement to certain creditors, and respondent paid his 
client her net proceeds. 
{¶ 4} Respondent, however, took more than 15 months to pay the 
client’s creditors, despite the client’s numerous requests.  The client also informed 
respondent that a creditor had sued her to collect a debt that respondent was 
supposed to have paid from the settlement funds.  As a result of the collection 
action, the client’s credit rating was lowered and she was unable to obtain credit 
for loans. 
{¶ 5} In May 2005, respondent was diagnosed as suffering from major 
depression.  Respondent subsequently entered into a contract with the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”).  Respondent is no longer in need of 
medication for depression. 
Stipulated Misconduct 
{¶ 6} Respondent admitted and the board found that respondent had 
violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s 
fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), and 9-
102(A) (failing to deposit client funds into separate and identifiable bank 
accounts). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 7} In recommending a sanction, the board considered the aggravating 
and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations 
January Term, 2007 
3 
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶ 8} As an aggravating factor, the board found that as a result of the 
accounting practices of respondent and his employer, one of respondent’s clients 
sustained harm to her credit rating.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h). 
{¶ 9} In mitigation, the board found the absence of a prior disciplinary 
record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, respondent’s cooperation in 
the disciplinary process, his acceptance of responsibility, and his reimbursement 
of shortfalls in his employer’s IOLTA account.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), 
(b), (c), and (d).  The board also noted that respondent recognized and sought 
treatment for his depression and further found mitigating his contract with OLAP.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(h) 
{¶ 10} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for six months, with the suspension stayed with probation on the 
conditions that (a) respondent submit to a monitoring program during his six-
month suspension and provide proof of his accounting methods for his IOLTA 
account, and (b) respondent continue his contract with OLAP.  The board adopted 
the panel’s recommendation. 
Review 
{¶ 11} Respondent does not challenge the board’s findings of misconduct 
or the recommended sanction.  We have reviewed the board’s record and its 
report and we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 6-
101(A)(3), and 9-102(A).  We also agree that the board’s recommendation of a 
six-month suspension, with the entire suspension stayed with probation and 
conditions, is the appropriate sanction.  If the respondent fails to comply with 
these conditions or if he commits further misconduct during his stayed 
suspension, the stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire six-month 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
John N. Porter and Dennis E. Paul, for relator. 
 
Michael E. Murman, for respondent. 
______________________