Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Wick

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Wick, 116 Ohio St.3d 193, 2007-Ohio-6042.] 
 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. WICK. 
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Wick, 116 Ohio St.3d 193, 2007-Ohio-6042.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Public reprimand. 
(No. 2007-1558 — Submitted September 12, 2007 — Decided  
November 15, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-015. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Donald Keith Wick of Mount Gilead, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0011010, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1983.  For the reasons 
that follow, we hereby publicly reprimand him for professional misconduct. 
{¶ 2} On April 16, 2007, relator, Ohio State Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with professional misconduct.  After respondent 
filed an answer, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline considered the case on the parties’ 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.”).  The panel and the board accepted the agreement 
and concurred in the sanction recommended by the parties. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent served as the village solicitor of the village of Mount 
Gilead from August 2003 until December 2006, and during that time, he 
prosecuted violations of village ordinances in the Mount Gilead mayor’s court.  
While serving as village solicitor, respondent was permitted by the village to 
represent criminal defendants in courts other than the mayor’s court. 
{¶ 4} In May 2006, respondent agreed to represent Michael Belt, who 
had been charged with two misdemeanor offenses in the Morrow County 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Municipal Court.  Unbeknownst to respondent, Belt had also been charged with a 
related violation of a village ordinance in the Mount Gilead mayor’s court. 
{¶ 5} When respondent learned about the mayor’s court charge, he filed 
a motion in that court, asking that Belt’s case be transferred to the municipal 
court.  That motion was granted, and respondent then negotiated with the 
municipal court prosecutor to resolve the three charges against Belt.  After this 
transfer to the municipal court, respondent did not negotiate with or confer with 
the Mount Gilead police officers who had filed the misdemeanor charge against 
Belt in the mayor’s court where respondent served as the prosecutor. 
{¶ 6} Respondent acknowledged and the panel and the board found that 
respondent’s actions violated DR 5-105(B) (prohibiting a lawyer from accepting 
or continuing to represent multiple clients if the lawyer’s professional judgment 
on any client’s behalf is likely to be compromised by the representation). 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  
The board cited no aggravating factors but did identify several mitigating factors, 
including the absence of any prior disciplinary record, the absence of any 
dishonest or selfish motive on the part of respondent, his full disclosure and 
cooperative attitude during the disciplinary process, and his excellent character 
and reputation.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e). 
{¶ 8} The 
parties 
recommended 
that 
respondent 
be 
publicly 
reprimanded.  The panel and the board agreed with this recommendation. 
{¶ 9} We agree that respondent has committed the misconduct described 
above, and we agree that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction.  “[A] 
lawyer’s duty to provide undivided loyalty to a client is paramount.” Columbus 
Bar Assn. v. Ross, 107 Ohio St.3d 354, 2006-Ohio-5, 839 N.E.2d 918, ¶ 29.  
“Lawyers must avoid all actual and potential conflicts of interest so as not to 
January Term, 2007 
3 
dilute their independent loyalty to each client.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Jacobs, 
109 Ohio St.3d 252, 2006-Ohio-2292, 846 N.E.2d 1260, ¶ 8 (imposing a public 
reprimand for an attorney’s violation of DR 5-105(B)).  Respondent should not 
have represented a client on a criminal charge in a mayor’s court, where 
respondent served as a prosecutor.  In light of the mitigating evidence identified 
by the board, however, we trust that a public reprimand is sufficient to ensure that 
this misconduct will not recur. 
{¶ 10} In comparable cases, we have publicly reprimanded attorneys who 
violated DR 5-105(B) when there existed some of the same mitigating factors 
present here.  See, e.g., Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Reid, 102 Ohio St.3d 402, 
2004-Ohio-3121, 811 N.E.2d 542, ¶ 12 (no prior disciplinary record, no dishonest 
motive, full cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings, and good character and 
reputation); Toledo Bar Assn. v. Tolliver (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 462, 463, 584 
N.E.2d 670 (no prior record of disciplinary action and no harm to clients); Stark 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Phillips (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 286, 287-288, 544 N.E.2d 237 
(cooperation in the disciplinary process, no prior disciplinary record, and good 
reputation in the legal community). 
{¶ 11} Accordingly, respondent is publicly reprimanded.  Costs are taxed 
to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Brian D. Weaver; Young, Taylor & Yarger and Kevin H. Taylor; and 
Eugene P. Whetzel, for relator. 
 
Mark H. Aultman, for respondent. 
_____________________