Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Morgan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Morgan, 114 Ohio St.3d 179, 2007-Ohio-3604.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MORGAN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Morgan,  
114 Ohio St.3d 179, 2007-Ohio-3604.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Commingling funds in client trust account — 
Conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer’s fitness to practice law — Failure 
to cooperate in investigation of professional misconduct — Two-year 
suspension, with one year stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2007-0343 — Submitted April 17, 2007 — Decided July 18, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-073. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Ronald Clark Morgan of Hamilton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0032870, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in May 
1966.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends 
that we suspend respondent’s license to practice law for two years, with one year 
stayed on conditions, based on findings that respondent commingled clients’ 
funds with his own and failed to cooperate in the investigation of this misconduct.  
On review, we agree that respondent committed professional misconduct as found 
by the board and that a two-year suspension, with one year stayed, is appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, 
Disciplinary 
Counsel, 
charged 
respondent 
with 
professional misconduct in a two-count complaint.  The board attempted to serve 
respondent with the complaint by certified mail at his address on file with the 
Attorney Registration Section and at the address on the complaint, but both 
mailings were returned unclaimed.  The board thereafter perfected service through 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
the clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov. Bar Rule V(11)(B) (clerk is 
agent for attorney who conceals his or her whereabouts). 
{¶ 3} Respondent did not answer the complaint, and, under Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(F), relator filed a motion for default.  A master commissioner appointed by 
the board granted the motion, making findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 
recommendation.  The board adopted the findings of misconduct and the 
recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
Count I— Commingling 
{¶ 4} During the 2003-2005 attorney-registration biennium, respondent, 
then a sole practitioner, reported that he maintained an IOLTA (Interest on 
Lawyer’s Trust Account) account.  From January 2005 until the bank closed the 
account in January 2006, respondent made various deposits from unspecified 
sources into his IOLTA account.  During the same period of time, he made 13 
withdrawals from his IOLTA account, either through counter withdrawals or 
cash-out tickets, for a total of $8,619.  He also wrote 29 checks totaling $2,154 on 
the account.  Through his withdrawals and checks, respondent overdrew his 
IOLTA account 13 times in various amounts from May 2005 through January 
2006, demonstrating that he used the account for purposes other than safekeeping 
client-entrusted funds. 
{¶ 5} Under DR 9-102(A), a client trust account may contain only funds 
belonging to clients (excluding advances for costs or expenses), funds over which 
a dispute exists, and funds reasonably sufficient to pay bank charges.  Because 
respondent kept funds in his IOLTA account other than those permitted by the 
rule, we agree with the board that respondent violated DR 9-102(A) and 1-
102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on 
the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Count Two — Failure to Cooperate in a Disciplinary Investigation 
January Term, 2007 
3 
{¶ 6} After receiving notice of respondent’s IOLTA account overdrafts, 
relator’s investigator sent him two certified letters in June and July 2005 inquiring 
about the problem.  Respondent received the letters but did not reply.  Relator also 
subpoenaed respondent for an August 2005 appearance.  Prior to the appearance 
date, the investigator spoke to and released respondent from the subpoena on the 
condition that respondent reply during the first week of September 2005 to the 
investigator’s letters of inquiry.  Respondent promised to respond but did not. 
{¶ 7} The investigator issued a second subpoena for respondent to 
appear on a date in October 2005.  Respondent did not appear, and the 
investigator later discovered that respondent’s telephone had been disconnected.  
The investigator again wrote to respondent, but respondent did not reply.  
Respondent did call the investigator in December 2005 in reply to yet another of 
the investigator’s letters and explained various hardships that had befallen him.  
Respondent promised to send a response to the investigator’s inquiries within six 
days, but he did not. 
{¶ 8} After yet another letter to which respondent did not reply, the 
investigator filed notice of intent to file a formal complaint, sending respondent 
notice of the filing. 
{¶ 9} Because respondent repeatedly ignored investigative inquiries, we 
agree with the board that he violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to 
cooperate in an investigation of professional misconduct). 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} “[M]ishandling of clients’ funds either by way of conversion, 
commingling, or just poor management, encompasses an area of the gravest 
concern of this court in reviewing claimed attorney misconduct.”  Columbus Bar 
Assn. v. Thompson (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 667, 669, 23 O.O.3d 541, 433 N.E.2d 
602.  “[A]ttorneys [must] maintain their personal and office accounts separate 
from their clients' accounts * * *.”  Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Grievance Commt. v. Miles (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 574, 577, 669 N.E.2d 831.  
Any violation of this rule “warrants a substantial sanction whether or not the 
client has been harmed.”  Id.  See, also, Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise, 108 Ohio 
St.3d 381, 2006-Ohio-1194, 843 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 15. 
{¶ 11} When a lawyer deposited his own funds in a client trust account to 
prevent his wife from attaching the funds during their divorce proceedings, we 
ordered a one-year suspension, all stayed, for that commingling.  Dayton Bar 
Assn. v. Rogers (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 25, 711 N.E.2d 222.  Respondent violated 
the same duty in this case, but unlike the lawyer in Rogers, respondent removed 
rather than added funds to his client trust account, repeatedly placing his clients’ 
funds directly at risk.  Respondent also breached his duty to the legal profession 
with his protracted failure to respond to relator’s requests for information.  
Together, this misconduct warrants a more stringent sanction than a stayed 
suspension. 
{¶ 12} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider the 
ethical duties violated, the actual or potential injury caused, the attorney's mental 
state, and sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown 
(1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 316, 720 N.E.2d 525.  Before making a final determination, 
we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 
10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Id.  See, also, Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, and Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Glatki 
(2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 381, 726 N.E.2d 993. 
{¶ 13} The board found that respondent had engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct by overdrawing his IOLTA account on multiple occasions and had 
failed to participate in the disciplinary proceedings, aggravating factors under 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d) and (e).  Because respondent did not participate, we 
January Term, 2007 
5 
have no mitigating evidence before us other than respondent’s lack of a prior 
disciplinary record.  We therefore accept the recommendation for a two-year 
suspension with one year stayed. 
{¶ 14} Respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two 
years. One year of the suspension is stayed, however, on the condition that 
respondent commit no further misconduct.  If respondent violates this condition, 
the stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire two-year suspension.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER and CUPP, 
JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents and would indefinitely suspend respondent from the 
practice of law in Ohio. 
 
O’CONNOR, J., dissents and would suspend respondent from the practice 
of law in Ohio for two years with no time stayed. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________