Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio St.3d 365, 2007-Ohio-2076.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MATHEWSON. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 
 113 Ohio St.3d 365, 2007-Ohio-2076.] 
Attorneys —  Misconduct — Engaging in conduct involving fraud, deceit, 
dishonesty, or misrepresentation — Conduct adversely reflecting on 
fitness to practice law — Conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice —  Failing to maintain separate account — Charging excessive 
fees — Failure to promptly return unpaid fees — Neglect of entrusted 
legal matter — Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation — 
Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2006-2287 — Submitted February 14, 2007 — Decided May 16, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-052. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This court admitted respondent, Thomas George Mathewson, last 
known address in Xenia, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0067048, to the practice 
of law in Ohio in 1996.  On December 5, 2005, we suspended respondent’s 
license to practice for failure to comply with the attorney-registration 
requirements in Gov.Bar R. VI.  In re Attorney Suspension, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 
2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671.  On October 3, 2006, we imposed an interim 
suspension of respondent’s license pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5) upon receiving 
notice that he had defaulted on a child-support order.  In re Mathewson, 111 Ohio 
St.3d 1401, 2006-Ohio-5200, 854 N.E.2d 1083. 
{¶ 2} In the case now before us, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged 
that respondent had committed professional misconduct by neglecting five 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
clients’ cases, misusing his client trust account, and failing to cooperate in the 
investigation of this misconduct.  After attempts to serve respondent with the 
complaint by certified mail failed, relator served the complaint on the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Respondent did not answer, 
and relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master 
commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline granted the motion, making findings of fact and conclusions of law and 
recommending a sanction of an indefinite suspension, all of which the board 
adopted. 
{¶ 3} On review of the board’s report, we find that respondent 
committed all but one of the charged violations of the Disciplinary Rules and that 
he violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) by failing to cooperate in the disciplinary 
investigation.  We also accept the recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
Count I — The Burghy Grievance 
{¶ 4} In early March 2003, Linda Burghy hired respondent to help her 
obtain custody of her daughter, paying him $600 and giving him various records 
needed for the case.  Respondent promised to pursue the matter promptly.  When 
respondent did not report back to his client, Burghy started leaving messages for 
him.  She did not speak with respondent again until sometime after December 
2003. 
{¶ 5} When Burghy finally did reach respondent, he told her he was 
going through a divorce and custody battle of his own and advised her to get 
another attorney.  Burghy did hire another attorney, and her new attorney twice 
asked respondent for Burghy’s case file and a $600 refund.  Respondent did not 
reply and never returned Burghy’s file or her money. 
{¶ 6} After Burghy paid respondent in March 2003, he overdrew funds 
from his client trust account, allowing the balance to fall below $600. 
January Term, 2007 
3 
{¶ 7} We find that by abandoning Burghy’s case, keeping unearned fees, 
and failing to return her case file, respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 2-106(A) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from charging or collecting a clearly excessive fee), 2-
110(A)(3) (generally requiring a lawyer to promptly refund any unearned fee 
upon withdrawal from employment), 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 9-102(A) (requiring a lawyer to keep client 
funds in a separate, identifiable bank account), and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring a 
lawyer to promptly repay funds to which the client is entitled). 
Count II — Criminal Defendant Grievances 
{¶ 8} In August 2003, a Montgomery County common pleas judge 
appointed respondent to represent David L. Smith in appealing a conviction.  
Respondent failed to ensure that the record on appeal was prepared and filed, as 
required by App.R. 10(A).  In November, a Second District Court of Appeals 
judge issued an order requiring respondent to cause the record to be prepared and 
filed within 14 days or show cause why Smith’s appeal should not be dismissed.  
Because respondent did not reply to the show-cause order or cause the record to 
be filed, the court of appeals judge removed him from the case in December 2003 
and appointed new counsel for Smith. 
{¶ 9} In February 2004, a court of appeals judge appointed respondent to 
represent Scott Chessman and Keith Sulek in separate appeals of their 
convictions.  Respondent did not file briefs on either appellant’s behalf.  In May, 
the judge ordered respondent to file briefs or show cause to avoid dismissal in 
both cases.  Respondent did not file either brief or respond to the show-cause 
orders. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 10} In July 2004, the judge issued notices of intent to remove 
respondent as counsel for Chessman and Sulek and gave him another extension in 
which to file briefs.  Respondent did not file the briefs or otherwise respond to the 
court’s notice.  In September 2004, the court of appeals removed respondent from 
both cases and appointed new counsel to represent the appellants. 
{¶ 11} In June 2003, the common pleas judge appointed respondent to 
represent another defendant in the appeal of his conviction.  Respondent failed to 
file an appellate brief on the defendant’s behalf.  In January 2004, the court of 
appeals issued an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed or 
to file a brief within 14 days.  Respondent did not file a brief or respond to the 
court’s notice. 
{¶ 12} In March 2004, the court of appeals gave respondent an extension, 
issuing a notice of intent to remove counsel and again ordering respondent to file 
a brief within 14 days.  Respondent still did not comply.  In April 2004, the court 
of appeals removed respondent and appointed new counsel for the defendant. 
{¶ 13} We find that by neglecting these appeals, respondent violated DR 
1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6), and 6-101(A)(3). 
Count III — Misuse of Client Trust Fund 
{¶ 14} In September 2003, respondent’s wife filed for divorce.  In a 
deposition taken during relator’s investigation, respondent admitted that he used 
his client trust account as a personal checking account throughout the divorce 
proceedings, attempting to avoid federal tax and local child-support enforcement 
authorities’ collection procedures.  In May 2004 and later months, respondent 
permitted his personal creditors to electronically withdraw funds from his client 
trust account.  He later deposited his personal funds into the trust account and 
drew checks from this account for his personal expenses.  From January 1, 2005, 
January Term, 2007 
5 
through March 31, 2005, respondent overdrew funds from his trust account at 
least ten times. 
{¶ 15} We find that by commingling personal funds with those held in his 
client trust account, respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-
102(A)(6), and 9-102(A). 
Count IV — Failure to Cooperate 
{¶ 16} We also find that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and DR 
1-102(A)(5).  Respondent appeared for his deposition on March 10, 2005, and, in 
testifying, confirmed his mailing address.  Respondent later received but ignored 
an investigator’s letter of inquiry.  And in April 2005, after the investigator 
explained respondent’s duty to answer the letter of inquiry, respondent promised 
to reply but never did.  Respondent also acknowledged his receipt of relator’s 
notice of intent to file a formal complaint, but he did not respond as requested. 
Sanction 
{¶ 17} In determining a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, we 
consider the mitigating and aggravating factors of his case.  See Section 10 of the 
Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶ 18} Respondent has cooperated by attending his deposition, but this 
mitigating factor is offset by his subsequent indifference to the disciplinary 
process.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e) and (2)(d).  Also somewhat mitigating 
is that respondent went through a contentious divorce during the underlying 
events and is now in counseling and on medication.  These factors are 
outweighed, however, by the aggravating effect of respondent’s prior disciplinary 
record, which shows professional and personal irresponsibility.  BCGD Proc. Reg. 
10(B)(1)(a).  Moreover, we find, as did the board, that respondent acted out of 
self-interest in committing the instant misconduct, that his misconduct manifests a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses, and that he has made no effort to 
repay Burghy’s $600. 
{¶ 19} Relator advocated and the board recommended an indefinite 
suspension of respondent’s license to practice.  We accept that recommendation, 
which is consistent with the rule that an attorney’s neglect of legal matters and 
failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation warrant an indefinite 
suspension.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Harris, 108 Ohio St.3d 543, 2006-Ohio-1715, 
844 N.E.2d 1202, ¶ 22.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Lord, 111 Ohio St.3d 131, 2006-
Ohio-5341, 855 N.E.2d 457, ¶ 29.  As relator argued: 
{¶ 20} “In Count I, respondent neglected his client’s case, failed to 
safeguard his client’s funds, failed to turn over the file, and failed to return the 
unearned fee.  In Count II, respondent demonstrated his disrespect for the criminal 
justice system by neglecting four appellate cases and ignoring numerous show 
cause orders.  In Count III, respondent consistently abused his [client trust] 
account by using it as a personal checking account.  While under oath, respondent 
confirmed that he was using his [client trust] account in such a manner as to avoid 
attachment by the IRS and the Child Support Enforcement Agency.  In addition, 
in a three-month period, respondent overdrew his [client trust] account 10 times.  
Finally, respondent’s lack of cooperation throughout the disciplinary process, 
coupled with the aforementioned misconduct, warrants an indefinite suspension.” 
{¶ 21} We therefore indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of 
law in Ohio.  To be eligible for reinstatement two years from the date of our 
order, respondent must comply with the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(10), 
including making $600 in restitution to Burghy, with interest at the legal rate, 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R.V(10)(E)(1).  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2007 
7 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________