Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnston

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnston, 121 Ohio St.3d 403, 2009-Ohio-1432.] 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. JOHNSTON. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnston, 
 121 Ohio St.3d 403, 2009-Ohio-1432.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice 
law — Failure to maintain client funds in separate account — One-year 
suspension stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2008-2447 — Submitted February 4, 2009 — Decided April 2, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-017. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Wesley Alton Johnston of Wadsworth, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0061166, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1993.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends 
that we suspend respondent’s license to practice for one year, staying the 
suspension on remedial conditions, based on findings that he impermissibly 
commingled his personal and client funds by using his client trust account for 
operating expenses.  We agree that respondent committed this professional 
misconduct as found by the board and that a one-year stayed suspension is 
appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent in a one-count 
complaint with violations of the current Rules of Professional Conduct and the 
Disciplinary Rules of the former Code of Professional Responsibility.1  A panel 
                                                 
1.   In effect, relator charged respondent with continuing violations of the applicable rules for 
misconduct occurring before and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of 
Professional Responsibility, which supersede the Code of Professional Conduct.  In specifying 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
appointed by the board heard the case, including the parties’ extensive stipulations 
and respondent’s testimony, made findings of misconduct, and recommended an 
18-month, conditionally stayed suspension from practice.  The board accepted the 
findings of misconduct but recommended a conditionally stayed suspension of 
one year. 
{¶ 3} The parties have not objected to the board’s report. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Upon passing the bar, respondent worked for approximately one 
and one-half years for another attorney and then opened his own practice, mainly 
accepting court-appointed juvenile and criminal cases.  As of the November 2008 
panel hearing, respondent maintained offices in Wadsworth, Youngstown, and 
Cleveland.  He devoted approximately half of his practice to court-appointed 
criminal work but also represented clients in domestic-relations disputes and 
Social Security claims, and in cases involving contract and business litigation, 
workers’ compensation, and personal injury. 
{¶ 5} Soon after opening his solo practice, respondent opened a bank 
account for holding client funds in trust, an account he has always maintained.  
But because of financial difficulties, respondent eventually started overdrawing 
his operating bank account, which led to large bank overdraft charges and other 
fees.  He then switched to using his client trust account both for entrusted funds 
and as his operating account.  From January 2006 through October 2007, 
respondent admittedly commingled funds in his client trust account by depositing 
client funds, personal funds, earned attorney fees, and unearned retainer fees into 
the account. 
                                                                                                                                     
both the former and current rules for the same acts, the allegations compose a single ethical 
violation.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 
31, fn. 1. 
 
January Term, 2009 
3 
{¶ 6} Respondent made nine deposits that had no relation to any client, 
for a total of $3,370.63, into his client trust account during 2006.  The bulk of 
these deposits came from rent money that respondent had collected for the 
landlord from another tenant in his office building. He had deposited other funds 
just to avoid overdrawing the account. 
{¶ 7} During 2006, respondent cashed 37 checks from the trust account, 
withdrawing a total of $12,327.44.  He cashed 18 checks from the trust account 
during 2007, withdrawing another $6,455.  Respondent wrote 44 checks from the 
client trust account during 2006 and 2007 to pay personal obligations.  He also 
routinely made ATM or debit withdrawals and transferred funds from the account 
to pay both personal and business creditors.  Respondent insists that he had earned 
all funds that he withdrew, and relator did not charge that he had misappropriated 
any client funds. 
{¶ 8} Moreover, respondent overdrew his client trust account during 
2006 and 2007.  His bank assessed him for either overdraft or insufficient-fund 
charges 22 times.  The negative balance in respondent’s trust account triggered 
the bank’s obligation to report the impropriety to relator, which commenced the 
investigation that led to the underlying complaint. 
{¶ 9} Respondent ended up bouncing one check to a client, but he 
quickly covered the check, paying the client by a certified check that included 
associated bank charges.  Respondent also did not have an acceptably reliable 
recordkeeping system to allow him to account to clients for funds in his 
possession. 
{¶ 10} Based on the parties’ stipulations, the panel and board found clear 
and convincing evidence that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and its 
counterpart, Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (both prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects upon his fitness to practice law); DR 9-102(A) (all 
funds of clients paid to a lawyer shall be deposited in one or more identifiable 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
bank accounts containing no funds belonging to the lawyer) and its counterpart, 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (a lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that 
is in a lawyer’s possession in connection with representation separate from the 
lawyer’s own property); and DR 9-102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete 
records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming into the 
possession of a lawyer and render appropriate accounts to his client regarding 
them).  We accept these findings of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the duties violated by the lawyer in question and the 
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 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.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  Because each disciplinary 
case is unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take 
into account “all relevant factors” in determining what sanction to impose.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
{¶ 12} We have already discussed respondent’s violations of duties owed 
to his client and the profession.  With respect to precedent, the board’s 
recommendation of a one-year suspension, all stayed on conditions, is within the 
range of sanctions we have imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 13} As the board observed, we suspended the lawyer in Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Newcomer, 119 Ohio St.3d 351, 2008-Ohio-4492, 894 N.E.2d 50, 
from practice for six months, staying the entire suspension, because he had used 
his client trust account for his personal banking needs after the bank closed his 
January Term, 2009 
5 
personal account.  That lawyer overdrew the client trust account on two 
occasions.  We found him in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6) and 9-102(A). 
{¶ 14} By contrast, the lawyer in Disciplinary Counsel v. Vogtsberger, 
119 Ohio St.3d 458, 2008-Ohio-4571, 895 N.E.2d 158, commingled his own 
funds with those held in trust for clients to shield the money from creditor 
garnishment.  Because that lawyer committed the extra impropriety of acting 
dishonestly to hide personal resources, a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), we 
suspended him for two years with a stay of only the second year. 
{¶ 15} The board found respondent’s misuse of his client trust account of 
greater gravity than the misuse in Newcomer but less than the misuse in 
Vogtsberger.  We agree.  Moreover, though respondent engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct, an aggravating factor under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), he has 
presented much in mitigation.  Respondent has no previous record of professional 
discipline, has incorporated a new accounting system for his practice, and has 
cooperated fully in the disciplinary proceedings, which are all mitigating factors 
under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (d).  Fortunately, no client suffered 
significant financial harm due to respondent’s misconduct.  Respondent’s good 
character and reputation in his community and his charitable work on behalf of 
victims of Huntington’s disease, disadvantaged clients, and his church also weigh 
in his favor. 
{¶ 16} We suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for one 
year; however, the suspension is stayed on the condition that he complete a one-
year monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9).  The monitoring 
attorney, to be appointed by relator, shall provide oversight as to respondent’s 
business practices, especially as they relate to management of his client trust 
account.  As a second condition of the stay, respondent shall complete, in addition 
to the other continuing legal education (“CLE”) requirements under Gov.Bar. R. 
X, six hours of CLE in law-office management and accounting.  If respondent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
fails to comply with the terms of the stay and probation, the stay will be lifted, 
and he will serve the entire one-year suspension. 
{¶ 17} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacey Solocheck 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Paul Knott, for respondent. 
______________________