Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Eynon

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Eynon, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-953.] 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-953 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. EYNON. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Eynon,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-953.] 
Attorney misconduct, including engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice, failing to hold property of clients in an account 
separate from the attorney’s own property, and failing to cooperate with a 
disciplinary investigation. 
(No. 2011-1422—Submitted January 9, 2013—Decided March 19, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-028. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Ernest A. Eynon II of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0022392, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1969.  In 
a two-count complaint filed on April 11, 2011, relator, disciplinary counsel, 
charged Eynon with improper use of his client trust account and failure to 
cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Although the complaint was served by certified mail, Eynon did 
not answer it, and relator moved for default.  A master commissioner appointed 
by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline found, by clear and 
convincing evidence, that Eynon committed the charged misconduct and 
recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for two years, with 
12 months stayed.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommended sanction, and on August 30, 2011, this 
court issued an order to show cause why the court should not confirm the board’s 
recommendation and enter an order of discipline. 
{¶ 3} On October 10, 2011, Eynon moved the court to remand the cause 
to the board so that he could submit mitigating evidence or, alternatively, 
supplement the record with a psychological report under seal.  We granted 
Eynon’s motion in part, remanded this cause to the board for the consideration of 
mitigating evidence, and ordered the parties to submit an agreed redacted copy of 
a psychological report. 
{¶ 4} On remand, a panel of the board conducted a hearing to receive 
Eynon’s mitigating evidence.  In light of the evidence presented, the panel 
recommended that Eynon be suspended from the practice of law for one year, all 
stayed on conditions.  The board adopted the panel’s report and recommended 
sanction.  Having considered Eynon’s misconduct, the applicable aggravating and 
mitigating factors, and the sanctions we have imposed for comparable 
misconduct, we find that a one-year suspension, all stayed on the conditions 
recommended by the board, will adequately protect the public from future 
misconduct. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} Relator submitted evidence with its motion for default that in 
September 2010, KeyBank notified relator that two items posted to Eynon’s client 
trust account had been returned for insufficient funds.  Over the next several 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
months, relator sent Eynon several letters of inquiry, but Eynon did not respond.  
He also failed to respond to a subpoena duces tecum ordering him to appear for 
deposition and produce his client-trust-account records.  Consequently, relator 
subpoenaed the trust-account records from KeyBank.  The records produced by 
the bank show that Eynon had issued a number of checks from his client trust 
account to several professional and civic associations as well as other businesses, 
including PNC Bank, ING Reliastar, and a law firm.  A check from the Angela B. 
Eynon Trust was deposited into the account, and a total of 19 PayPal transactions 
were deducted from it. 
{¶ 6} With respect to Count One, the board found that by failing to 
respond to relator’s disciplinary investigation, Eynon violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for 
information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation), 8.4(d) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary 
investigation). 
{¶ 7} Based upon Eynon’s use of his client trust account for his personal 
and business-related banking, with respect to Count Two, the board found that he 
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(b) (permitting a lawyer to deposit his or her own funds in a client trust 
account for the sole purpose of paying or obtaining a waiver of bank service 
charges), and 8.4(h).  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  
{¶ 9} On remand, Eynon testified before the panel and did not dispute 
that he had overdrawn his client trust account or that he had paid a number of 
personal and business expenses out of the account.  He explained, however, that 
he had deposited money from his wife into the account to cover those expenses.  
He stated that for most of his legal career, he worked for a large law firm and had 
not been responsible for conducting the firm’s banking, and he did not receive 
training regarding proper client-trust-account management until 2012.  Eynon 
now understands that his handling of his client trust account was inappropriate, 
and he sincerely apologized for his misconduct. 
{¶ 10} With regard to his failure to respond to the disciplinary 
investigation, Eynon testified that upon his receipt of the first letter of inquiry 
from relator, he froze and could not respond.  He stated that after the second 
notice, he did not open any of relator’s correspondence.  He expressed his belief 
that if relator’s investigator had called him on the phone, he would have 
responded, but indicated that he could not pick up the phone to make the call 
himself. 
{¶ 11} Eynon presented testimony, letters, and an affidavit from a number 
of people who attested to his integrity and good character.  A psychological 
evaluation prepared by Jeffrey L. Smalldon, Ph.D., documented that Eynon 
suffered from major depression occasioned by a series of personal tragedies—
including the substance abuse and addiction of one of his children, the untimely 
death of a grandchild, and the fallout of an unsuccessful investment—that 
psychologically immobilized him and grossly impaired his judgment at the time 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
the charged misconduct occurred, and further prevented him from responding to 
relator’s inquiries.  Eynon commenced treatment with Elizabeth Poe, L.I.S.W, 
L.I.C.D.C., on March 12, 2012.  She testified that she diagnosed Eynon with 
dysthymia, stated that his symptoms had improved with a sustained period of 
treatment, and expressed her opinion the he was capable of practicing law in an 
ethical manner.  Moreover, the board found that Eynon entered into a two-year 
contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) on February 8, 
2012, to assist and monitor his recovery. 
{¶ 12} In addition to recognizing Eynon’s mental disability as a 
mitigating factor pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g), the board also found 
that his character and reputation for integrity are unblemished, he has no prior 
disciplinary record, and he did not act with a dishonest or selfish motive.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (e). 
{¶ 13} Aggravating factors found by the board include a pattern of 
misconduct involving multiple offenses and Eynon’s failure to cooperate in the 
disciplinary process.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), and (e). 
{¶ 14} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Maguire, 131 Ohio St.3d 412, 2012-
Ohio-1298, 965 N.E.2d 996, we imposed a one-year suspension for an attorney 
who commingled personal and client funds in her client trust account, used the 
account to pay personal expenses, overdrew the account on several occasions, and 
failed to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation.  The only mitigating 
factor was that Maguire had no prior disciplinary record.  And in Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Simon, 128 Ohio St.3d 359, 2011-Ohio-627, 944 N.E.2d 660, ¶ 10, we 
imposed a one-year, fully stayed suspension for an attorney who engaged in 
similar misconduct involving his client trust account and who responded to 
relator’s initial letter of inquiry but later failed to provide requested records in a 
timely fashion.  That attorney eventually entered into a consent-to-discipline 
agreement with the relator. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 15} We find that the mitigating factors present in this case, including 
Eynon’s exemplary record apart from the charged misconduct, his excellent 
reputation, and his diagnosed mental impairment, which impaired his ability to 
cooperate in the underlying disciplinary investigation, render this case most 
comparable to Simon.  Therefore, we agree that the appropriate sanction for 
Eynon’s misconduct is a one-year fully stayed suspension, as recommended by 
the board. 
{¶ 16} Accordingly, Ernest A. Eynon II is suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for one year, with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions that 
he commit no further misconduct, remain in compliance with his OLAP contract, 
and satisfactorily complete his counseling with Elizabeth Poe.  Costs are taxed to 
Eynon. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, Chief 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, L.P.A., Geoffrey Stern, and Rasheeda Z. 
Khan, for respondent. 
______________________