Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Gregory

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Gregory, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2365.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-2365 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. GREGORY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Gregory, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-
2365.] 
Attorney misconduct, including failing to hold property of clients in an interest-
bearing client trust account separate from the lawyer’s own property and 
failing to maintain a record of the funds held on behalf of each client—
Six-month suspension, all stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2011-2036—Submitted January 18, 2012—Decided May 30, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-015. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michele L. Gregory, formerly of Toledo, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0071394, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1999.  On February 14, 2011, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a seven-count 
complaint alleging that Gregory had committed professional misconduct in her 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
handling of seven different client matters.  The alleged misconduct included 
failure to provide competent representation, neglect of client legal matters, failure 
to act with reasonable diligence, failure to comply with reasonable requests for 
information from a client, trust-account violations, and failure to disclose a 
material fact in response to a request by a disciplinary authority. 
{¶ 2} The parties submitted a consent-to-discipline agreement pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(11)(A)(3)(c) and BCGD Proc.Reg. 11, but the panel rejected the 
agreement because it addressed only counts six and seven of relator’s complaint. 
{¶ 3} At the hearing on the matter, relator moved the panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline to dismiss counts one through five 
of its complaint, and the panel granted the motion.  Based upon the parties’ 
stipulations of fact and misconduct and Gregory’s testimony, the panel found that 
Gregory had mishandled client funds and her client trust account as stipulated 
with respect to counts six and seven of relator’s complaint.  Based upon this 
finding, the panel recommended that Gregory be suspended from the practice of 
law for six months but that the entire suspension be stayed on the conditions that 
she complete a one-year term of monitored probation, attend six hours of 
continuing education (“CLE”) in law-office management,  and commit no further 
misconduct. 
{¶ 4} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and misconduct as 
well as the recommended sanction, and so do we. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} The parties stipulated and the panel and board found that Gregory 
mishandled the retainers remitted by two separate clients.  Count six involved 
client Brenda Rausch, who gave Gregory an $800 retainer to file an adoption 
proceeding.  Although Gregory maintained a client trust account, she initially 
failed to deposit the retainer into her trust account, and her records were in such 
disarray that it was impossible to determine when the money was finally 
January Term, 2012 
3 
deposited into that account.  Rausch discharged Gregory and requested a refund 
because Gregory had failed to initiate the adoption proceeding.  Gregory refunded 
the retainer with a check from her client trust account. 
{¶ 6} Count seven involved divorce client Kimberly Stockard.  Gregory 
received a retainer of $3,999.94—a $2,999.94 check, which she deposited with 
six cents of her own money into her client trust account, and a $1,000 check, 
which she deposited into her business account—on behalf of Stockard in January 
2007.  Stockard discharged Gregory on November 8, 2007, and Gregory 
submitted a $2,820 bill for the 28.2 hours of work she had performed on 
Stockard’s behalf.  On November 27, 2007, Gregory issued Stockard a $1,180 
refund check from her client trust account, though she later stipulated that from 
February 2, 2007, through November 27, 2007, the balance in her client trust 
account was always less than $1,180, which shows that she had withdrawn some 
of the unearned portion of the retainer. 
{¶ 7} With respect to both counts, Gregory admitted that she had failed to 
promptly deposit and hold the clients’ entire retainer in her client trust account.  
She also admitted that she had failed to maintain an accurate record of the funds 
held for each client; had failed to maintain records regarding her client trust 
account, including all bank statements, deposit slips, and canceled checks; and 
had failed to perform and retain monthly reconciliations. 
{¶ 8} Based upon these facts, the parties stipulated and the panel and 
board found that Gregory had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to 
hold property of clients in an interest-bearing client trust account, separate from 
the lawyer’s own property), 1.15(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for 
each client on whose behalf funds are held), 1.15(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to 
maintain all bank statements, deposit slips, and canceled checks, if provided by 
the bank, for each bank account), and 1.15(a)(5) (requiring a lawyer to perform 
and retain a monthly reconciliation of the funds held in the lawyer’s client trust 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
account) with respect to counts six and seven.1  The panel and board also found 
that she had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit into a 
client trust account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance) with 
respect to count seven by withdrawing a portion of Stockard’s retainer from her 
client trust account when the fees had not been earned. 
{¶ 9} The board dismissed the charges alleging violations of Prof.Cond.R. 
1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client) with 
respect to counts six and seven and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from knowingly making a false statement of material fact in connection with a 
disciplinary matter) and 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to 
respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an 
investigation) with respect to count six, finding that relator had failed to prove 
them by clear and convincing evidence. 
{¶ 10} We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct and also dismiss 
the charge alleging a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to 
maintain a record for the lawyer’s client trust account, setting forth the name of 
the account, the date, amount, and client affected by each credit and debit, and the 
balance in the account) with respect to count seven that has not been proven by 
clear and convincing evidence and has not been disposed of by either the panel or 
the board. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} In recommending a sanction, the panel and board considered the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  See 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 
N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  As aggravating factors, they found that Gregory had engaged 
                                                 
1. Relator’s complaint did not allege violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) or 1.15(a)(4) with respect 
to count six, but Gregory stipulated to those violations with respect to that count.  And at the 
hearing, she testified that she had received adequate notice of those allegations.   
 
January Term, 2012 
5 
in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(c) and (d).  In mitigation, the panel and board cited the absence of both a 
prior disciplinary record and a dishonest or selfish motive.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a) and (b).  They also cited the absence of lasting harm to clients, 
Gregory’s timely good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of her misconduct 
by making restitution, her full and free disclosure to the board, and her 
cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(c) and (d).  They found that Gregory had acknowledged the wrongful 
nature of her conduct, had sincerely assured the panel that she would not commit 
similar misconduct in the future, and had voluntary wound down her practice 
during the pendency of this disciplinary matter to protect potential clients from 
having to find new attorneys if she lost her right to practice. 
{¶ 12} Relator suggests that a one-year stayed suspension is the 
appropriate sanction for Gregory’s misconduct, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Croushore, 108 Ohio St.3d 156, 2006-Ohio-412, 841 N.E.2d 781 (imposing a 
one-year stayed suspension and two years of monitored probation upon an 
attorney for commingling personal and client funds in his client trust account and 
failing to maintain adequate records of client funds held in that account) and Allen 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schramski, 124 Ohio St.3d 465, 2010-Ohio-630, 923 N.E.2d 603 
(imposing a one-year suspension stayed on conditions, including the completion 
of a two-year term of monitored probation, for an attorney who failed to maintain 
adequate records of funds held in her client trust account, commingled personal 
and client funds in her client trust account, and used that account to pay personal 
expenses). 
{¶ 13} The panel and board rejected relator’s recommended sanction, 
however, finding that Gregory’s misconduct was not as egregious as Croushore’s 
or Schramski’s.  Instead, they found our decisions in Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Fletcher, 122 Ohio St.3d 390, 2009-Ohio-3480, 911 N.E.2d 897, and Disciplinary 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
Counsel v. Vivyan, 125 Ohio St.3d 12, 2010-Ohio-650, 925 N.E.2d 947, to be 
more instructive. 
{¶ 14} In Fletcher, the attorney had failed to maintain required records to 
document the identity of funds in his client trust account, used his client trust 
account as his operating account, and provided impermissible financial assistance 
to a client.  Fletcher at ¶ 4-6, 11.  We found that his failure to follow adequate 
accounting practices, however, was the result of his “complete lack of 
understanding and appreciation of his duty to safeguard client funds.”  Id. at ¶ 16. 
And although he had commingled personal and client funds, the amounts involved 
were small, no one had accused him of misappropriation, and no clients were 
harmed as a result of his misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 15-16.  Consequently, we found that 
the appropriate sanction for Fletcher’s misconduct was a six-month suspension, 
stayed on the conditions that Fletcher complete one-year of monitored probation 
and that he commit no further misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 17.  And in Vivyan we 
imposed a six-month stayed suspension for an attorney who withdrew $1,535 in 
unearned fees from his client trust account.  Vivyan had practiced law for 40 
years without misconduct and had made timely restitution in that he replenished 
his trust account when he learned that it was overdrawn.  Id. at ¶ 13. 
{¶ 15} Given Gregory’s full acknowledgment of her deficiencies, her 
timely good-faith effort to make restitution, and her sincere assurance that she 
will not commit similar misconduct in the future, we believe that a six-month 
suspension stayed on the conditions recommended by the board will adequately 
protect the public from future misconduct. 
{¶ 16} Accordingly, we suspend Michele L. Gregory from the practice of 
law in Ohio for six months, all stayed on the conditions that she complete a one-
year term of monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9), attend at 
least six hours of CLE in law-office management in addition to the requirements 
of Gov.Bar R. X, and commit no further misconduct.  If Gregory fails to comply 
January Term, 2012 
7 
with the conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted and she will serve the full 
six-month suspension.  Costs are taxed to Gregory. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Michael A. Bonfiglio, Bar Counsel; MacMillan, Sobanski & Todd, L.L.C, 
and Richard S. MacMillan; and Handwork & Kerscher, L.L.P, and Jeffrey M. 
Kerscher, for relator. 
Michele L. Gregory, pro se. 
______________________