Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Peters

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Peters, 87 Ohio St.3d 348, 1999-Ohio-138.] 
 
 
 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. PETERS. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Peters (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 348.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Eighteen-month suspension with final twelve 
months stayed on condition — Neglecting an entrusted legal matter — 
Commingling client funds. 
(No. 99-1159 — Submitted  August 25, 1999 — Decided December 22, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-73. 
 
In early 1996, respondent, William J. Peters of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0032163, who had not registered or paid his fees with the 
Supreme Court for the years 1995 and 1996, settled a personal injury claim on 
behalf of his client, Lucretia Woods, and received a check for $15,000, which he 
deposited in his trust account on February 7, 1996.  On February 6, 1996, after 
receiving the check and before depositing it, respondent prepared a settlement 
statement.  The statement provided that respondent would take his agreed 
contingent fee of $5,000, transmit $5,471.20 to Woods, and use the balance of the 
proceeds to pay Woods’s medical fees. 
 
Respondent claimed that at the time of the settlement he had an oral 
agreement with Woods to increase her recovery by compromising some of her 
medical bills for less than was due. 
 
On February 6, 1996, the day of the settlement statement,  Chiropractic 
Enterprises (“Chiropractic”) wrote to respondent and agreed to compromise its 
$3,350 bill for $2,000.  On March 29, 1996, respondent sent a $1,000 check to 
Woods for her savings from the Chiropractic compromise  and kept $350 as his fee 
for negotiating it.  After several telephone calls to respondent, Chiropractic wrote 
to him in June 1996, stating that it had not received the compromise amount and if 
 
 
2
it was not received within ten days, Chiropractic would seek payment from Woods.  
Chiropractic wrote respondent again in August 1996, noting that payment had not 
been received despite the fact that respondent had signed a “Doctor’s Lien” with 
Chiropractic.  Respondent finally paid Chiropractic $2,000 on January 31, 1997.  
From April 8, 1996 through June 10, 1996, and from June 21, 1996 through 
January 3, 1997, respondent had less than $2,000 in his trust account.  He used the 
trust account for other than client matters because the Internal Revenue Service 
had attached his personal bank account. 
 
On February 20, 1997, respondent paid American Radiological $93.34 as a 
compromise of Woods’s $140 bill, and kept the difference as his fee for reduction 
of the bill.  On the same day, respondent paid National Digitizing $163.34 as a 
compromise of Woods’s $245 bill, and kept the difference as a fee for achieving 
the reduction. 
 
On August 11, 1997 relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent’s conduct violated several Disciplinary Rules.  
Respondent answered, and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
The panel found the facts as stated and concluded that by not paying 
Woods’s medical bills for nearly a year, respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) 
(neglecting an entrusted legal matter), and by using the client funds in his trust 
account, he violated DR 9-102 (commingling client funds with the attorney’s 
funds).  The panel also found that respondent collected a clearly excessive fee and 
thereby violated DR 2-106(A).  In addition, the panel found that respondent had 
not registered with the Supreme Court as required by Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(A) for a 
period of time before the complaint was filed. 
 
In mitigation, the panel found that the respondent had not been previously 
disciplined by the court and that he freely admitted his wrongdoing.  The panel 
 
 
3
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for eighteen 
months with the final twelve months stayed on condition that during the stay 
respondent submit to a monitoring program satisfactory to the relator. 
 
The board adopted the findings of fact of the panel, and found in mitigation 
that respondent showed genuine remorse for his misconduct and that Woods 
suffered no real harm as a result of the delay.  The board concluded that respondent 
had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 9-102, but not 2-106(A), and adopted the 
recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan B. Cherry, for relator. 
 
Martin E. Mohler, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent violated DR 9-102.  The evidence indicates that during 
most of the year in which respondent delayed paying his client’s medical bills, the 
balance in his trust account was insufficient to make those payments and that 
insufficiency was caused by respondent’s personal use of the funds.  Respondent 
also violated DR 6-101(A)(3).  His delay in paying Woods’s medical bills for 
nearly a year was a breach not only of his promise to Woods in the settlement 
statement, but also of his agreement with Chiropractic to pay the compromise 
amount.  Respondent’s compromise of the American Radiological and National 
Digitizing bills solely for his own benefit was a breach of his fiduciary duty to his 
client. 
 
Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for eighteen 
months with the final twelve months stayed on condition that during the stay 
respondent submit to a monitoring program satisfactory to relator.  Costs are taxed 
to respondent. 
 
 
4
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., CORRIGAN, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., dissents because he would stay a one-year suspension. 
 
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for 
RESNICK, J.