Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Dicker

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Dicker, 102 Ohio St.3d 123, 2004-Ohio-1803.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. DICKER. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Dicker, 102 Ohio St.3d 123, 2004-Ohio-1803.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Failing to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigation — Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on 
fitness to practice law — Failing to maintain complete records of client 
funds and to render appropriate accounts. 
(No. 2004-0039 — Submitted February 3, 2004 — Decided April 28, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-049. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Gary H. Dicker of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0037755, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1987.  
On June 9, 2003, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged respondent with 
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ 
consent-to-discipline agreement.  See Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations 
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶2} 
Frazier Legal Group retained respondent in June 2002 to represent 
a client in a parole-violation case.  The Frazier Group accepted a $2,500 fee to 
arrange the representation and paid respondent either $750 or $1,000 of this 
amount.  Respondent, however, could not precisely account for his fee because he 
did not maintain records of the transaction.  Respondent also has not refunded any 
unearned portion of his fee. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
During relator’s investigation of this misconduct, respondent 
represented that he had consulted with his client while in jail when, in fact, he had 
not.  Respondent later realized that he had confused this client with another client 
whom he had visited in jail.  He explained his mistake and stipulated that his 
conduct violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring an attorney to cooperate in an 
investigation of misconduct). 
{¶4} 
The panel accepted the parties’ agreement as to respondent’s 
misconduct and found that he had violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that 
adversely reflects on an attorney’s fitness to practice law) and 9-102(B)(3) 
(requiring an attorney to maintain complete records of client funds and to render 
appropriate accounts) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
{¶5} 
In recommending a sanction, the panel considered the aggravating 
and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. Section 10.  Consistent with the 
parties’ agreement, the panel found respondent’s failure to cooperate to be an 
aggravating factor.  Considering mitigating factors, the panel found that 
respondent had no prior disciplinary record, had not acted out of dishonesty or 
selfishness, and has a reputation for good character in the legal community. 
{¶6} 
In accepting the consent-to-discipline agreement, the panel also 
recommended the sanction stipulated by the parties: a public reprimand.  The 
board accepted the parties’ agreement, adopting the panel’s findings of 
misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶7} 
We agree with the board’s findings of misconduct and 
recommendation.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded for 
having violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and 9-102(B)(3) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).  Costs 
are taxed to the respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2004 
3 
__________________ 
 
Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, Jill Snitcher McQuain, Assistant Bar 
Counsel, Joel H. Mirman and Barbara J. Petrella, for relator. 
 
Alvin E. Mathews Jr., for respondent. 
__________________