Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Simpson

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. Simpson, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-54.] 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-54 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SIMPSON. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Simpson,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-54.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to promptly deliver funds that client is entitled 
to receive—Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation—Consent to 
discipline—One-year suspension stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2013-0922—Submitted July 9, 2013—Decided January 21, 2014.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-097. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jeffrey Glenn Simpson of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0080376, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2006.  
On December 10, 2012, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Simpson with 
professional misconduct following Simpson’s representation of a landlord in an 
eviction matter.  After obtaining a judgment in favor of his client and taking 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
possession of a rent-payment check issued by the tenant, Simpson then lost or 
misplaced the check and failed to pay his client the rent money and failed to 
respond to his client’s numerous requests for information about the rent payment.  
Relator also alleged that Simpson failed to cooperate in the subsequent 
disciplinary investigation regarding the matter. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11. 
{¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Simpson stipulates to the 
facts alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that his conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with 
reasonable requests for information from the client), 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer 
to promptly deliver funds or other property that the client is entitled to receive), 
8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for 
information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation), and 8.4(h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to 
cooperate with a disciplinary investigation).  Relator requests the dismissal of the 
alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that mitigating factors include the absence of 
a prior disciplinary record, the payment of full restitution to the client, and 
Simpson’s evidence of good character and reputation.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (e).  As an aggravating factor, the parties note that Simpson 
engaged in multiple offenses by failing to respond to his client’s requests for 
information about the recovered rent payment, failing to deliver the rent payment 
to the client, and failing to promptly respond to relator’s requests for information 
during the investigation.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d).  Based upon these 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
factors, the parties stipulate that the appropriate sanction for Simpson’s 
misconduct is a one-year suspension from the practice of law, with the entire 
suspension stayed upon the conditions that Simpson engage in no further 
misconduct and comply with all treatment recommendations from the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), Dr. Daniel J. Rapport, and/or Dr. John 
Wryobeck. 
{¶ 5} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline 
agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and recommend that we adopt the 
agreement in its entirety. 
{¶ 6} We agree that Simpson violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(d), 
8.1(b), and 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and, as stated in the parties’ 
agreement, that this conduct warrants a one-year suspension with the entire 
suspension stayed on conditions.  Therefore, we adopt the parties’ consent-to-
discipline agreement, and we dismiss the charged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(d). 
{¶ 7} Accordingly, Jeffrey Glenn Simpson is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law for a period of one year with the entire suspension stayed upon the 
conditions that Simpson (1) comply with the treatment recommendations of 
OLAP, Dr. Rapport, and/or Dr. Wryobeck and (2) commit no further misconduct.  
If Simpson fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted, 
and Simpson will serve the one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Simpson. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Karen H. Osmond, for relator. 
________________________