Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WISE. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Misappropriation of 
client funds. 
(No. 98-2213 — Submitted December 16, 1998 — Decided March 24, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-20. 
 
When Elaine F. Cestone moved from Ohio to Mississippi in 1994, she and 
respondent, James Russell Wise of Youngstown, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
0039046, agreed that he would be a joint signatory on her bank accounts.  Cestone 
also gave respondent control over her investment accounts with the understanding 
that he would pay the majority of her expenses from the bank and investment 
accounts.  Between March 1994 and May 1996, respondent removed over $22,000 
from Cestone’s accounts, which he used, without her knowledge or authorization, 
to pay his own obligations. 
 
In April and May 1996, respondent deposited $16,500 and $5,000 of his 
own funds into his client trust account.  When Cestone asked respondent to stop 
representing her, respondent withdrew $21,100 from the trust account and paid it 
to Cestone. 
 
On April 6, 1998, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
alleging these facts and charging respondent with disciplinary violations.  
Respondent answered, and the matter was submitted on stipulations to a panel of 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board’). 
 
The panel found the facts as stipulated and concluded that by improperly 
removing funds from Cestone’s accounts, respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a 
 
2
lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation) and (6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely 
reflects upon the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The panel further concluded 
that by commingling his own funds with those in his client trust account, 
respondent violated DR 9-102(A) (all funds of clients paid to a lawyer shall be 
deposited in identifiable bank accounts and no fund belonging to the lawyer shall 
be deposited therein). 
 
The panel stated that it received in mitigation respondent’s testimony, 
testimony from attorneys, and numerous letters on behalf of respondent.  The 
panel also found that respondent cooperated with relator and the panel and 
immediately reimbursed Cestone when asked to do so.  The panel recommended 
that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  The board 
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
J. Gerald Ingram, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  The normal sanction for misappropriation of client funds is 
disbarment.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Connaughton (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 644, 
645, 665 N.E.2d 675, 676, and cases cited therein.  However, on some occasions 
because of mitigating circumstances, we have given weight to a board 
recommendation of a lesser sanction.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Kurtz (1998), 82 
Ohio St.3d 55, 693 N.E.2d 1080.  We do so in this case.  Respondent is hereby 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
 
3
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.