Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Wickerham

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. Wickerham, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2580.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-2580 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WICKERHAM. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wickerham,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2580.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple violations, including misappropriation from 
clients and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authority—Permanent 
disbarment. 
(No. 2011-2032—Submitted January 18, 2012—Decided June 14, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-074. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michelle Wickerham, formerly of West Union, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0074984, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
2002.  We suspended her license on an interim basis on April 29, 2011, pursuant 
to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(a), based upon allegations that she had engaged in conduct 
that violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and that she posed a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
substantial threat of serious harm to the public.  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Wickerham, 128 Ohio St.3d 1469, 2011-Ohio-2052, 946 N.E.2d 229.  And on 
November 16, 2011, we suspended her from the practice of law for her failure to 
register as an attorney for the 2011 to 2013 biennium.  In re Atty. Registration 
Suspension of Wickerham, 130 Ohio St.3d 1441, 2011-Ohio-5890, 957 N.E.2d 
302.  Both of these suspensions remain in effect. 
{¶ 2} Based upon findings that Wickerham has failed to answer 
disciplinary counsel’s 30-count complaint and has committed nearly 300 
violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Supreme Court Rules for 
the Government of the Bar in Ohio, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline now recommends that we permanently disbar Wickerham. 
{¶ 3} Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we find that relator has 
proven the allegations in the complaint by clear and convincing evidence.  
Therefore, we adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and 
hereby permanently disbar Wickerham from the practice of law in Ohio. 
Procedural History and Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Relator received the first of numerous grievances in December 
2010.  An assistant disciplinary counsel spoke with Wickerham on or about 
January 31, 2011.  Wickerham indicated that she was having difficulty dealing 
with pending custody proceedings involving her children and that she was 
addicted to prescription drugs.  Assistant disciplinary counsel advised Wickerham 
that relator would like to obtain her client files in order to return them to her 
clients, informed her that she needed to respond to the grievances filed against 
her, and suggested that she contact the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program 
(“OLAP”).  Several days later, relator’s investigator retrieved approximately 11 
banker’s boxes of client files from Wickerham’s garage.  Relator returned 
approximately 97 files to clients, but retains approximately 150 files for clients 
who cannot be located. 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
{¶ 5} Wickerham acknowledged to assistant disciplinary counsel that she 
was receiving the grievances sent to her by relator, and relator has submitted 
documentation that 11 of its certified letters of inquiry were accepted by a Kevin 
Moler at Wickerham’s address.  But Wickerham never responded to any of 
relator’s letters of inquiry. 
{¶ 6} On August 15, 2011, relator filed a 30-count complaint alleging 
that, among other things, Wickerham had violated numerous Rules of 
Professional Conduct and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) in her handling of more than 30 
client matters. 
{¶ 7} Unable to obtain service of the complaint on Wickerham at the 
addresses on file with the Office of Attorney Services or at a North Carolina 
address she had given to relator’s investigator, relator obtained service upon the 
clerk of this court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). 
{¶ 8} Wickerham did not answer the complaint.  Consequently, relator 
moved for default judgment and, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1)(b),  
submitted 65 sworn or certified exhibits in support of the motion, including 
affidavits and supporting documents from relator’s investigator, assistant 
disciplinary counsel, the executive director of OLAP, a magistrate, two judges, 
and 27 of Wickerham’s clients. 
{¶ 9} A master commissioner appointed by the board granted relator’s 
motion for default.  The evidence demonstrated that Wickerham violated the 
Rules of Professional Conduct by accepting retainers from clients and then failing 
to both reasonably communicate with those clients and honor the numerous 
promises she had made to them.  She performed few, if any, of the services she 
had agreed to provide and failed to withdraw from representation when her 
physical or mental condition, purportedly caused by her addiction to prescription 
drugs and her child-custody difficulties, materially impaired her ability to 
represent her clients.  Affidavits from two judges, a magistrate, and her clients 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
demonstrate that she failed to attend numerous hearings, often without notice.  
Clients attempting to reach Wickerham found her office closed and her phone 
disconnected.  Wickerham did not refund her clients’ retainers.  She further 
violated the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio by 
failing to respond to numerous demands for information by relator or otherwise 
cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigations.1     
{¶ 10} Therefore, the master commissioner found that relator had proven 
by clear and convincing evidence that Wickerham had committed 30 violations of 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a 
client), 30 violations of 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), one violation of 1.4(a)(1) (requiring a lawyer to inform the 
client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed 
consent is required), 26 violations of 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to reasonably 
consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be 
accomplished), 29 violations of 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter), 14 violations of 1.4(a)(4) 
(requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for 
information from the client), 27 violations of 1.15(d)2 (requiring a lawyer to 
promptly deliver funds or other property that the client is entitled to receive), 30 
violations of 1.16(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to withdraw from representation when 
the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability 
to represent the client), 11 violations of 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary 
authority during an investigation), 25 violations of 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer 
                                                 
1  The facts of each violation are detailed in the board’s December 5, 2011 report.   
 
2  In his complaint, relator alleged that Wickerham had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 with respect to 
27 counts of the complaint, but from the misconduct described, it is clear that relator meant to cite 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(d).  The master commissioner and the board have perpetuated this error in their 
respective reports.   
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
from 
engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation), 30 violations of 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), 30 violations of 8.4(h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer's fitness to practice law), and 11 violations of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) 
(requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation). 
{¶ 11} The evidence also clearly and convincingly demonstrates that 
Wickerham borrowed $13,000 from a client without advising her in writing of the 
inherent conflict of interest and the desirability of obtaining independent counsel 
or ensuring that the terms of the transaction were fair, reasonable, and fully 
disclosed in a writing signed by the client.  Indeed, the promissory note, signed by 
Wickerham alone, provides only the amount of the loan and an annual interest 
rate of 18 percent.  No deadline for repayment is mentioned.  The master 
commissioner found that this conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(a)(1) through (3) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from entering into a business transaction with a client unless 
the client is advised in writing of the desirability of obtaining independent legal 
counsel and the terms of the transaction are fair, reasonable, and fully disclosed in 
a writing signed by the client). 
{¶ 12} The board has adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact 
and misconduct as its own, and so do we. 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} In recommending a sanction, the master commissioner and board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1) and (2).  See Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 
2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  They found that six of the nine 
aggravating factors set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) were present, including 
a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, 
failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process, harm to vulnerable clients, and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
failure to make restitution.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (h) and 
(i). 
{¶ 14} The master commissioner and board found that that no mitigating 
factors were present.  It is evident that Wickerham has serious mental-health and 
substance-abuse issues, but they do not qualify as mitigating factors pursuant to 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).  Scott Mote of OLAP avers that Wickerham signed 
a five-year recovery contract with OLAP on August 31, 2010, promised to attend 
12-step meetings regularly, and sought admission to an intensive outpatient drug-
treatment program.  She did not follow through, however, and by October 22, the 
treatment center had closed Wickerham’s file due to nonattendance.  Wickerham 
had sporadic contact with OLAP thereafter, and in mid-February 2011, all contact 
ceased.  Thus, there is no evidence that Wickerham has begun, let alone 
completed, an approved treatment program, that she underwent a sustained period 
of successful treatment, or that she will be able to return to the competent, ethical, 
and professional practice of law in the future.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(g)(iii) and (iv). 
{¶ 15} In this case, Wickerham has engaged in a pattern of misconduct 
that spanned more than four and a half years and involved numerous instances of 
misappropriation, totaling more than $35,000.  Wickerham has neglected client 
matters, lied to her clients about the status of their matters and the work she 
intended to perform, and failed to reasonably communicate with her clients.  She 
has also failed to make restitution and failed to cooperate in the resulting 
disciplinary investigations.  Her serious and repeated misconduct demonstrates 
that she is not fit to practice law. 
{¶ 16} The presumptive disciplinary sanction for a pattern of misconduct 
involving dishonesty, misappropriation, and lack of cooperation in disciplinary 
proceedings is disbarment.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones, 112 Ohio St.3d 46, 
2006-Ohio-6367, 857 N.E.2d 1221, ¶ 22.  See also Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
Fernandez, 99 Ohio St.3d 426, 2003-Ohio-4078, 793 N.E.2d 434, ¶ 9 (“The 
presumptive sanction for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment”); 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 102 Ohio St.3d 264, 2004-Ohio-2683, 809 
N.E.2d 1113, ¶ 15 (an attorney’s “persistent neglect of his clients’ interests, 
failure to perform as promised, failures to account for his clients’ money, and lack 
of any participation in the disciplinary proceedings” warrant disbarment).  That 
sanction is appropriate here. 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, Michelle Wickerham is hereby permanently 
disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to Wickerham. 
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 Carol A. Costa, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________