Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Helbling

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Helbling, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-955.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-955 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. HELBLING. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Helbling,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-955.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Safekeeping of funds and property — Consent-
to-discipline agreement — Public reprimand. 
(No. 2009-2264 — Submitted January 13, 2010 — Decided March 18, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-047. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, John Joseph Helbling of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0046727, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1990. 
{¶ 2} On June 15, 2009, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with four violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 
regarding the safekeeping of funds and property after respondent allegedly 
overdrew his Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (“IOLTA”) account. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 3} The parties entered into a 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.”).  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline adopted the agreement of the parties, including the stipulated facts, 
violations, and sanction.  Based upon its findings that respondent committed four 
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15, including single violations of 1.15(a)(2)(iv) and 
1.15(a)(3)(ii) and two violations of 1.15(c), the board recommends that we 
publicly reprimand respondent.  On review, we adopt the board’s findings of 
misconduct and hold that a public reprimand is appropriate for respondent’s 
violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} The stipulated facts of this case show that on July 1, 2008, 
respondent received two checks totaling $1,790.92 from a client (“client one”) to 
cover court reporting costs owed to Litigation Support Services.  Respondent 
deposited both checks into his IOLTA account on or about July 10, 2008, and on 
July 14, 2008, he issued a check for $1,790.92 to Litigation Support Services on 
behalf of client one. 
{¶ 5} Between July 14 and July 31, 2008, respondent made several 
online transfers from his IOLTA account to his business account and drew one 
check on the IOLTA account for a separate client matter.  On August 6, 2009, 
respondent transferred an additional $3,000 from his IOLTA account to his 
business account for “fees earned,” leaving a balance of $556.30 in the IOLTA 
account.  At the time respondent made that transfer, the $1,790.92 check to 
Litigation Support Services had not yet been presented to the bank for payment.  
When Litigation Support Services deposited its check on August 6, 2008, 
respondent’s bank returned the check for insufficient funds.  Therefore, it is clear 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
that respondent failed to maintain a proper accounting of which client’s monies he 
withdrew as he paid himself. 
{¶ 6} The next day, respondent deposited a second client’s $1,500 
retainer to his IOLTA account.  This deposit permitted the Litigation Support 
Services check to clear.  But even assuming that the entire IOLTA account 
balance of $556.30 belonged to client one, $1,234.62 of the payment to Litigation 
Support Services came from funds belonging to a second, unrelated client. 
{¶ 7} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, respondent admits that he 
(1) violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2)(iv) by failing to maintain a record of client 
one’s current balance and outstanding checks, (2) violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.15(a)(3)(ii) by failing to maintain a record of which client’s funds were affected 
by each IOLTA account credit and debit, (3) violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c) by 
failing to maintain $1,790.92, advanced by client one for litigation expenses, in 
his IOLTA account, and (4) violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c) by causing a portion of 
a $1,500 IOLTA account deposit belonging to a second client to be misapplied to 
cover an overdraft. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} Neither the parties nor the board has identified any aggravating 
factors.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1).  The parties have stipulated to the 
following mitigating factors:  (1) respondent’s absence of any prior disciplinary 
history, (2) his cooperative attitude and full and free disclosure to the board, and 
(3) his actions in immediately funding his IOLTA account from his personal 
funds once he receive notice of the overdraft.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), 
(c), and (d). 
{¶ 9} We have previously imposed public reprimands for conduct similar 
to that of respondent.  See, e.g., Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Piszczek, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 228, 2007-Ohio-4946, 874 N.E.2d 783 (public reprimand for failure to 
properly oversee IOLTA account given lack of aggravating factors and mitigating 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
factors including that attorney made timely and good faith restitution, reconciled 
all account irregularities, and gave free and full disclosure for purposes of 
disciplinary proceedings);  Akron Bar Assn. v. Holda, 111 Ohio St.3d 418, 2006-
Ohio-5860, 856 N.E.2d 973 (public reprimand for failure to keep retainer in a 
separate, identifiable bank account and neglect of divorce action where there were 
no aggravating factors and several mitigating factors, including the absence of any 
prior disciplinary proceedings against attorney and lack of dishonesty or 
selfishness). 
{¶ 10} Therefore, on the board’s recommendation, we accept the consent-
to-discipline agreement.  For violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2)(iv), 
1.15(a)(3)(ii), and 1.15(c), we hereby order that respondent be publicly 
reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
W. Breck Weigel and Jarrod M. Mohler, for relator. 
 
John J. Helbling, pro se. 
______________________