Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Thomas

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Thomas, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-604.] 
 
 
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-604 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. THOMAS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Thomas,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-604.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Misappropriation of entrusted client funds — 
Indefinite license suspension. 
(No. 2009-1540 ⎯ Submitted October 20, 2009 ⎯ Decided February 25, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-034. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, James D. Thomas of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0040464, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1988.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to practice, based on findings that he 
misappropriated from a client at least $32,600 in entrusted funds.  We accept the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
findings that respondent engaged in this professional misconduct and that an 
indefinite suspension of his license is appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged respondent in three 
counts of violating the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct.1  A panel of the board 
heard the case, including the parties’ stipulations that respondent breached 
multiple ethical responsibilities incumbent on Ohio lawyers.  Dismissing the third 
count, the panel made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation 
for the indefinite suspension of respondent’s license.  The board adopted the 
panel’s findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶ 3} The parties do not object to the board’s report. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Respondent has practiced almost exclusively in the field of 
creditors’ rights and debt collection.  After working for 12 years as a salaried 
employee for various law firms and companies, respondent opened his own law 
practice in 2000. 
{¶ 5} In 2003, respondent contracted with Winona Holdings, Inc., a 
check-cashing company doing business as Checkcare Systems, to provide legal 
services related to processing debt-collection claims.  Checkcare paid respondent 
$200 per week to review and sign prepared collection notices and legal 
complaints.  He also represented Checkcare in litigation to resolve contested 
claims, receiving a 30 percent contingent fee of the amounts collected. As part of 
his duties, respondent deposited money collected on Checkcare’s behalf in his 
                                                 
1.  Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before 
and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 
supersede the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Although both the 
former and current rules are cited for the same acts, the allegations comprise a single continuing 
ethical violation.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 
N.E.2d 31, ¶ 1, fn. 1. 
 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
client trust account, disbursed proceeds to his client on a weekly basis, and was to 
periodically report to his client deposits and disbursements from the account. 
{¶ 6} In October 2004, however, respondent began experiencing cash-
flow problems resulting from a large California client’s delay in paying his 
$7,500 monthly salary for collection work that he performed for the company in 
Ohio.  To cover the shortfall this delay caused in his family’s budget, respondent 
wrote himself a check from the Checkcare funds held in his trust account.  When 
the California client did pay him, respondent did not reimburse the account. 
{¶ 7} The California client continued to delay payments to respondent, 
and respondent continued to write checks against the Checkcare proceeds in his 
trust account without repayment.  Beginning in October 2004 and ending in mid-
June 2006, respondent made 38 such illegal disbursements of varying amounts.  
In the end, he had misappropriated at least $32,600 in funds belonging to 
Checkcare. 
{¶ 8} Respondent concealed his theft initially by misleading his client as 
to amounts he had actually collected.  Checkcare eventually suspected the theft, 
however, and sued for an accounting.  Respondent and his client resolved the 
dispute by having respondent execute a cognovit note for $44,000 and by also 
agreeing to add to the value of the note misappropriated sums discovered after 
execution of the note.  Respondent also agreed to buy a life insurance policy and 
name Checkcare the beneficiary. 
{¶ 9} Respondent paid a few installments toward the cognitive note but 
then defaulted.  In November 2007, Checkcare obtained a judgment on the note 
against respondent for $57,599.  Respondent has not paid the judgment and has 
not purchased the life insurance policy he agreed to buy. 
{¶ 10} Respondent admitted that by misappropriating Checkcare’s funds 
and failing to appropriately account to his client for those funds, he violated the 
following ethical standards: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 11} 1.  DR l-102(A)(4) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from 
engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation); 
{¶ 12} 2.  DR 1-102(A)(6) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law); 
{¶ 13} 3. DR 7-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally 
causing a client prejudice or damage during representation); 
{¶ 14} 4.  DR 9-102(B)(3) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)2 (requiring a lawyer 
to maintain records and account for client funds); and  
{¶ 15} 5.  Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly pay funds 
to which a client is entitled and afterward render a full accounting). 
{¶ 16} The board accepted these admissions, and we confirm the board’s 
findings. 
Sanction 
{¶ 17} In recommending a sanction, the board weighed the following 
aggravating factors pursuant to Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations 
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.): 
{¶ 18} “a. Though motivated by financial hardship, Respondent clearly 
had a dishonest and selfish motive for his actions.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 1O(B)(l)(b). 
{¶ 19} “b. There is a pattern of misconduct in that not only did 
Respondent fail to remit his client’s funds to the client, he procrastinated in 
providing an accounting to buy time and hide his pilfering of the money.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(l)(c). 
                                                 
2.  The parties do not dispute that the stipulations miscited Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) and (d) as 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 (relating to fees and expenses). 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
{¶ 20} “c. There are multiple offenses that span a period of eighteen 
months. BCGD Proc. Reg.10(B)(1)(d). 
{¶ 21} “d. Though not charged in the complaint filed by Relator, 
Respondent admitted during the hearing that he did not have malpractice 
insurance [as required by Prof.Cond.R 1.4(c) under his contract with Winona] and 
that he did not provide the required notice to his clients. 
{¶ 22} “e. Though the client was a corporation, it was in a vulnerable 
position since Respondent was acting in a fiduciary capacity for Checkcare. 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h). 
{¶ 23} “f. Respondent has made only a negligible amount of restitution in 
the approximate amount of $800. BCDG Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(i).” 
{¶ 24} Against these aggravating factors, the board weighed the following 
mitigating factors: 
{¶ 25} “a. Respondent has no prior disciplinary violations. BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). 
{¶ 26} “b. There has been full and free disclosure together with complete 
cooperation with Relator’s investigation and prosecution.  Indeed, counsel for 
Relator remarked to the Panel that in all of his years of work in this area, he has 
never encountered a more cooperative Respondent.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(d). 
{¶ 27} “The Panel was not presented with any evidence of Respondent’s 
good character and reputation, and Respondent has not been subjected to other 
penalties and sanctions.” 
{¶ 28} In adopting the panel’s report and concluding that an indefinite 
suspension rather than disbarment was appropriate, the board reasoned: 
{¶ 29} “The presumptive penalty for violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and, 
presumably Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), is disbarment when theft of client funds is 
involved. Disciplinary Counsel v. McCauley, 114 Ohio St.3d 461, 2007-Ohio-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
4259 [873 N.E.2d 269], at ¶ 22.  However, significant mitigating circumstances 
can justify the lesser penalty of an indefinite suspension. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. 
Rothermel, 104 Ohio St.3d 413, 2004-Ohio-6559 [819 N.E.2d 1099]. 
{¶ 30} “ * * *  Relator recommended a two year suspension with one year 
stayed.  It was Relator’s position that Respondent intended all along to repay the 
money, but circumstances simply kept that from happening.  Respondent did not 
take issue with this recommendation, but suggested to the Panel that he would be 
in a better position to repay the amounts owed if he could continue practicing law.  
This comment by Respondent is fairly indicative of the naiveté with which he has 
viewed these proceedings and the ramifications of his conduct.  While 
Respondent was clearly remorseful and humiliated by what he did to his client 
and, indeed, his family, it is doubtful that he fully appreciates the gravity of the 
legal proceedings in which he is immersed. 
{¶ 31} “* * * Respondent did convince the Panel that his theft of the 
funds was born more of financial necessity than greed.  His law practice was only 
marginally successful and he clearly wrote the checks to alleviate cash flow 
problems that were not of his making.  His family, which at the time consisted of 
a wife and four minor children, had mortgage and other payments to be made.  
With a business income that was limited to begin with, nonpayment by his client 
apparently put a lot of pressure on Respondent to make up the deficit. 
{¶ 32} “* * *  For these reasons, the Panel declines to recommend 
disbarment but instead would recommend the lesser punishment of an indefinite 
suspension with reinstatement conditioned on his making restitution to Winona 
Holdings, Inc.  This sanction is consistent with a number of similar cases that 
have been decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio.  In Disciplinary Counsel v. 
McCauley, 114 Ohio St.3d 461, 2007-Ohio-4259 [873 N.E.2d 269], the 
respondent was given an indefinite suspension for multiple acts of misconduct.  
He commingled personal funds and client funds in his trust account, and paid 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
personal and business expenses through that account.  More significantly, the 
respondent misappropriated almost $200,000 from a client for whom he was 
doing contingent fee collection work.  Finally, Mr. McCauley spent over $50,000 
that his bank had mistakenly deposited into his account knowing that the money 
did not belong to him. See also Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v Maybaum, 112 Ohio 
St.3d 93, 2006-Ohio-6507 [858 N.E.2d 359] (Taking client funds being held to 
pay medical bills). 
{¶ 33} “* * *  In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Rothermel, 104 Ohio St.3d 413, 
2004-Ohio-6559 [819 N.E.2d 1099], the Supreme Court rejected the 
recommendation of the Board that the respondent be disbarred for taking client 
funds, and indefinitely suspended him.  In Rothermel, the respondent used 
$12,980 of his client’s funds that were on deposit in his trust account for personal 
and business expenses.  Notwithstanding his cooperation, contrition and 
restitution, the Board felt that his prior disciplinary offense for the same conduct 
together with the selfishness of his conduct justified the ultimate sanction of 
disbarment.  The Supreme Court rejected the Board’s recommended sanction 
noting that the respondent had admitted his misconduct and that he had made a 
forthright and conciliatory oral argument to the Court for leniency, all of which 
persuaded the Court to conclude that the respondent would be able to eventually 
return to the ethical practice of law in the future.  Rothermel, at ¶ 21. 
{¶ 34} “* * *  Admittedly, McCauley and Rothermel can be distinguished 
from Respondent’s case here, based on the fact that the respondents in these cases 
made full restitution.  However, the Panel does not believe that Respondent’s 
destitute financial situation should result in a more severe punishment.  This is 
Respondent’s first offense; he was fully cooperative with the investigation and 
prosecution of his case; and Respondent convinced the Panel that he was truly 
sorry for his conduct.  His will be a difficult journey back to reinstatement.  Not 
only will he have to support his family of six * * * without a law license, but he 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
will have to also garner sufficient funds to repay his client a rather substantial 
amount of money plus accumulated interest. 
{¶ 35} “* * *  It is, therefore, the Panel’s recommendation that 
Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period of 
time, that as a condition of reinstatement he make full restitution to Winona 
Holdings, Inc., and that he pay the costs of these proceedings.” 
{¶ 36} We accept the recommendation as to sanction.  Respondent is 
therefore suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Ohio.  Pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(10)(B), he may not petition for readmission until two years from 
the date of our order.  Moreover, consistent with the readmission requirement in 
Gov.Bar.R. V(10)(E)(1), respondent shall make full restitution to Winona 
Holdings, Inc.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Wiles, Boyles, Burkholder & Bringardner Co., L.P.A., and Michael L. 
Close; and Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, Assistant Bar 
Counsel, for relator. 
James D. Thomas, pro se. 
______________________