Title: Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Saunders

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Saunders, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1651.] 
 
 
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-1651 
GREENE CTY. BAR ASSN. v. SAUNDERS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Saunders,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1651.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple 
violations 
of 
Code 
of 
Professional 
Responsibility, including misappropriation of client funds—Permanent 
disbarment. 
(No. 2011-1460—Submitted October 18, 2011—Decided April 17, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-091. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Craig William Saunders, whose last known address is 
in Dayton, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0071865, was admitted to the practice 
of law in Ohio in 2000.  We suspended his license on November 3, 2009, for his 
failure to register as an attorney for the 2009–2011 biennium.  In re Attorney 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Registration Suspension of Saunders, 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 
N.E.2d 1256. 
{¶ 2} On December 7, 2009, relator, Greene County Bar Association, 
filed a complaint charging respondent with professional misconduct arising from 
his neglect of several client matters, conversion of client funds, and dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, as well as his failure to respond to the 
ensuing disciplinary investigations.  When attempts to serve the complaint on 
respondent by certified mail at multiple addresses failed, relator served it on the 
clerk of this court in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). 
{¶ 3} During the pendency of this action, we have suspended Saunders’s 
license to practice for an interim period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4) based 
on information that he had been convicted of a felony.  In re Saunders, 124 Ohio 
St.3d 1435, 2010-Ohio-187, 920 N.E.2d 367.  And we have indefinitely 
suspended Saunders for neglect, failure to reasonably communicate, and failure to 
respond to relator’s inquiries about several client grievances in an unrelated case.  
Greene County Bar Assn v. Saunders, 127 Ohio St. 3d 241, 2010-Ohio-5708, 938 
N.E.2d 352. 
{¶ 4} Because respondent has failed to file an answer to relator’s 
complaint in this action, relator moved for a default judgment on April 12, 2010.  
A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline found that relator’s evidence, consisting of affidavits from the 
grievants and copies of documents, was sworn or certified as required by Gov.Bar 
R. V(6)(F)(1)(b).  Based upon that evidence, the master commissioner granted 
relator’s motion for default, made findings of fact and misconduct, and 
recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.  
The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact and misconduct, 
except that the board dismissed an alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3. 
Nonetheless, the board adopted the master commissioner’s recommended 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
sanction.  Except as noted below, we adopt the board’s findings of fact and 
misconduct, and we disbar Saunders from the practice of law in Ohio. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} In its complaint, relator alleges that Saunders has committed 27 
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of 
Professional Conduct in his representation of four clients, including the city of 
Xenia, where he served as an assistant prosecutor. 
Count One 
{¶ 6} In the first count, the master commissioner and board found that 
respondent converted more than $40,000 that his client, Sue K. Johnston, had 
entrusted to him in 2005 to pay taxes due on her mother’s estate.  Despite 
Saunders’s assurances that the taxes had been paid, the Ohio Department of 
Taxation informed Johnston in 2008 that no tax return had been filed and that 
$45,806.75 in taxes, interest, and penalties remained unpaid.  Johnston tried 
without success to discuss the matter with Saunders.  She retained new counsel 
and paid the taxes herself. 
{¶ 7} Finding that Saunders’s conduct occurred before February 1, 2007, 
the effective date of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, the master 
commissioner and board concluded that the Code of Professional Responsibility 
applied.  Accordingly, they recommend that a number of alleged violations of the 
Rules of Professional Conduct be dismissed: they found that Saunders violated 
only DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting neglect 
of an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally 
failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client), 9-102(E)(1) (requiring a lawyer 
to maintain funds of clients or other third parties in a separate interest-bearing 
account). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} We agree that relator has clearly and convincingly proven the 
alleged violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), and 9-102(E)(1).  
And in accordance with the board’s recommendation, we hereby dismiss the 
alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable 
diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(1) through (4) (requiring a lawyer to 
reasonably communicate with the lawyer’s client and comply with the client’s 
reasonable request for information), 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), 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(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from violating or attempting to violate the Ohio Rules 
of Professional Conduct), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), (d) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of 
justice), and (h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely 
reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Count Two 
{¶ 9} Saunders was hired to file a lawsuit on behalf of Mildred Barreno.  
Barreno stated that she attempted to contact respondent on several occasions, that 
he never returned her phone calls, and that he later sent her a check for $1,340 
without explanation.1   
{¶ 10} Based upon the foregoing, the master commissioner and board 
found that Saunders violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(1).  We 
agree that respondent’s failure to pursue the action to a conclusion that had the 
consent of his client is an intentional failure to seek the lawful objectives of his 
client and that his failure to return her phone calls or explain the disposition of her 
                                                 
1.   The sworn and certified exhibits do not establish either that respondent filed a complaint or, if 
the complaint was filed, the reason that it was dismissed.   
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
case and to keep her informed constitutes both neglect and deceit.  Therefore, we 
find that Saunders’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-
101(A)(1). 
Count Three 
{¶ 11} In a third case, the Greene County Probate Court discovered that a 
fiduciary’s account filed on March 10, 2005, showed that money had been 
deposited with Saunders for the payment of estate taxes.  Four years later, the 
court directed respondent to finalize the account, but he did not do so. 
{¶ 12} Relator alleged that respondent converted approximately $2,500 
from this estate.  Because the amount respondent was fined when he was 
convicted of two counts of theft nearly matched the sum of the money allegedly 
converted by Saunders in this estate and the money converted in count one, the 
master commissioner and the board concluded that Saunders’s theft convictions 
related to the conduct alleged in this count and in count one of relator’s 
complaint.  Although it appears likely that respondent’s convictions are related to 
this conduct, because the judgment of conviction does not identify the underlying 
facts and there is not a certified copy of the indictment against respondent in the 
record or an affidavit from a person with personal knowledge of the case, there is 
not sufficient evidence to infer that the convictions and the misconduct are 
related.  The remaining sworn or certified exhibits presented to the master 
commissioner do not show that respondent converted funds from this estate.  
Therefore, we cannot adopt the board’s finding that respondent violated DR 1-
102(A)(4). 
{¶ 13} Based on the finding that respondent failed to finalize the account 
as ordered by the probate judge, the master commissioner and board found, and 
we agree, that Saunders violated DR 6-101(A)(3). 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Count Four 
{¶ 14} With respect to the fourth and final count, the master 
commissioner found that in 2009 and while serving as an assistant prosecutor for 
the city of Xenia, Saunders failed to file a brief in opposition to a criminal 
defendant’s appeal and lied to a government official about this failure.  Based 
upon this conduct and Saunders’s failure to respond to the ensuing disciplinary 
investigation, the master commissioner found that Saunders had violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 8.1(b), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h). 
{¶ 15} The board adopted these findings of fact but dismissed the alleged 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 without explanation.  We have previously rejected 
summary, conclusory assessments of misconduct that were based solely on 
conversations with grievants and that were not based upon the affiant’s personal 
knowledge as insufficient to constitute the sworn or certified documentary prima 
facie evidence required to support a motion for default in attorney disciplinary 
matters.  See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1)(b); Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 104 Ohio St. 
3d 448,  2004-Ohio-6560, 820 N.E.2d 318, ¶ 6-8, citing Northwestern Bar Assn. 
v. Lauber, 104 Ohio St.3d 121, 2004-Ohio-6237, 818 N.E.2d 687.  And many of 
the averments set forth in the affidavit relator has submitted in support of this 
count are hearsay.  Likewise, we find that the January 16, 2009 decision of the 
Second District Court of Appeals referring to the state’s failure to file a brief does 
not identify Saunders as counsel of record for the plaintiff-appellee and therefore 
cannot establish that he was the attorney responsible for the state’s failure to file 
an appellate brief.  We also point out that the copy of the appellate court’s opinion 
presented to the master commissioner was not a certified copy. 
{¶ 16} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct with respect 
to this count with one exception.  Because there is no evidence to show that it was 
Saunders’s responsibility to file the appellate brief in this client matter, or that he 
knew that the brief had not been filed, we cannot find that he engaged in 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation when he advised a government 
official that the brief had been filed.  Therefore, we adopt the board’s 
recommendation to dismiss the alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and also 
dismiss the alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c). 
Sanction 
{¶ 17} In recommending a sanction, the board considered the aggravating 
and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  See Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  
Aggravating factors found by the board include Saunders’s prior disciplinary 
record, dishonest or selfish motive, pattern of misconduct involving multiple 
offenses, lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process, and vulnerability of and 
resulting harm to the victims of the misconduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(a) through (e), (h).  Saunders has not made restitution to Johnston.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(i).  The board found that no mitigating factors were 
present. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2). 
{¶ 18} The master commissioner and board recommend that Saunders be 
permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  In support of this 
recommendation, they cite the seriousness and wide-ranging nature of Saunders’s 
misconduct, which included the misappropriation of more than $40,000 of client 
funds, and the presence of significant aggravating factors, which included the 
indefinite suspension imposed by this court in November 2010 for his neglect of 
client matters, conversion of client funds, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and 
misrepresentation, and his failure to respond to the ensuing disciplinary 
investigations. 
{¶ 19} Disbarment is the presumptive sanction for the misappropriation of 
client funds.  Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kafantaris, 121 Ohio St.3d 387, 2009-
Ohio-1389, 904 N.E.2d 875, ¶ 14, quoting Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio 
St.3d 490, 2002-Ohio-2490, 769 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 15.  In light of respondent’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
pattern of misconduct, including the misappropriation of more than $40,000 in 
client funds, his complete disregard for the disciplinary process, and the indefinite 
suspension we imposed in November 2010 for unrelated misconduct, we agree 
that permanent disbarment is warranted. 
{¶ 20} Accordingly, Craig William Saunders is permanently disbarred 
from the practice of law in the state of Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
David Miles, for relator. 
______________________