Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sayler

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sayler, 97 Ohio St.3d 239, 2002-Ohio-5936.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SAYLER. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sayler, 97 Ohio St.3d 239, 2002-Ohio-
5936.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with entire suspension 
stayed on condition that no additional violations of Disciplinary Rules 
are committed — Failing to keep clients’ funds in an identifiable bank 
account — Failing to account appropriately for clients’ funds. 
(No. 2002-1128 — Submitted August 27, 2002 — Decided November 13, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-49. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
We are asked in this case to decide the sanction for an attorney 
who failed to keep his clients’ funds in an identifiable bank account and also 
failed to appropriately account for those funds.  The Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline found that respondent, John L. Sayler of Lakewood, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0025452, committed this misconduct in violation 
of DR 9-102(A) (failure to maintain client’s funds, other than advances for costs 
and expenses, in an identifiable bank account) and (B)(3) (failure to maintain 
complete records of client’s funds in attorney’s possession).  The board 
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a 
period of six months but that mitigating circumstances warrant a stay of this 
suspension.  We agree with the board. 
{¶2} 
In March 1994, a married couple granted respondent a power of 
attorney, giving him authority over their financial affairs.  Respondent thereafter 
took control over $12,407.05 of the couple’s funds, but he did not maintain the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
funds in a bank account separate and identifiable from his own.  Respondent also 
failed to account for his clients’ money.  After the husband passed away, 
respondent returned all of the couple’s funds to the widow on or about February 
2, 2001. 
{¶3} 
Relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a complaint on 
June 11, 2001, charging respondent with violations of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  A panel of the board heard the cause and, based on the parties’ 
stipulations, found the facts as stated and that respondent had committed the cited 
misconduct. 
{¶4} 
In recommending a sanction, the panel considered the opinion of 
respondent’s treating psychiatrist, who reported that respondent suffered from 
severe depression during the events at issue.  According to his doctor, 
respondent’s condition caused him to be completely unable to recall what 
happened to his clients’ funds, including whether he had misplaced or 
mismanaged their money.  Notwithstanding this, the doctor indicated that 
respondent had been active in treating his illness for the last six or seven years 
and that he is now successfully controlling it through medication. The doctor saw 
no residual impediment to respondent’s current ability to responsibly engage in 
his law practice. 
{¶5} 
Based on this evidence and respondent’s remorse, the panel 
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six 
months but that the entire suspension be stayed.  The board adopted the panel’s 
findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶6} 
We also find that respondent violated DR 9-102(A) and (B)(3) and 
that a stayed six-month suspension is appropriate in view of respondent’s illness, 
single count of misconduct, contrition, restitution, cooperation, and the lack of a 
prior history of discipline.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for a period of six months; however, the entire suspension 
January Term, 2002 
3 
is stayed on the condition that respondent refrain from committing any additional 
violations of the Disciplinary Rules.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Robert Steely and Mildred K. Schad, for relator. 
 
John L. Sayler, pro se. 
__________________