Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Simon

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. Simon, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-627.] 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-627 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SIMON. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Simon,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-627.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Failure to cooperate in disciplinary 
investigation — Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — 
Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice — Commingling — 
One-year stayed suspension. 
(No. 2010-1763 — Submitted January 4, 2011 — Decided February 16, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-012. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Thomas John Simon of Ashtabula, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0009725, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1981. 
{¶ 2} On February 8, 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with violations of the Code of Professional 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Responsibility, Rules of Professional Conduct, and Rules for the Government of 
the Bar of Ohio arising from the misuse of his client trust account and failure to 
respond to relator’s request for information during the ensuing investigation. 
{¶ 3} The parties entered into a consent-to-discipline agreement pursuant 
to Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints 
and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”) and agreed that a one-year stayed suspension is the 
appropriate sanction for this misconduct.  The Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline adopted the agreement of the parties in its entirety.  
Because it is an appropriate sanction in this case, we accept the board’s 
recommendation and impose a one-year stayed suspension. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} The stipulated facts of this case show that from March 2007 
through December 2008, respondent deposited into his client trust account both 
client and personal funds, including attorney fees and retainers, and money from 
his Public Employees Retirement System account.  From June 2005 through 
March 2009, respondent wrote checks to himself, his wife, and his creditors, using 
his client trust account as though it were a personal bank account and law-office 
operating account. 
{¶ 5} Respondent submitted a timely response to relator’s initial letter of 
inquiry.  But when relator requested copies of his 2005 to 2008 income tax 
returns, respondent assured him that he would provide them and then failed to do 
so in a timely fashion.  He did, however, provide those documents to relator prior 
to the execution of the consent-to-discipline agreement, and relator states that 
there is no evidence suggesting that respondent used his client trust account in an 
effort to shield funds from creditors or the Internal Revenue Service. 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
{¶ 6} The parties have stipulated that respondent’s conduct prior to 
February 1, 2007,1 violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging 
in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and 9-
102(A) (requiring the preservation of the identity of client funds), that his conduct 
after that date violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold property 
of clients separate from the lawyer’s own property) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to 
practice law), and that his failure to provide information requested by relator 
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) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) 
(requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation). 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated 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 BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 8} Neither the parties nor the board has identified any aggravating 
factors weighing in favor of a greater sanction, but we find that the respondent has 
engaged in a pattern of misconduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c).  The 
parties have stipulated and the board agrees that respondent’s lack of a prior 
disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, and his character 
                                                 
1 February 1, 2007, is the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which supersede the 
Code of Professional Responsibility. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
and reputation are mitigating factors weighing in favor of a lesser sanction.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (e). 
{¶ 9} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnston, 121 Ohio St.3d 403, 2009-
Ohio-1432, 904 N.E.2d 892, ¶ 16, we imposed a one-year suspension stayed on 
the conditions that the attorney complete one year of monitored probation and six 
hours of continuing legal education in law-office management and accounting.  
Like the respondent in this case, Johnston had impermissibly commingled his 
personal and client funds and used his client trust account to pay his personal and 
business expenses.  Id. at ¶7.  But Johnston’s conduct was more serious than 
respondent’s because he had overdrawn his client trust account 22 times in a two-
year period.  Id. at ¶ 8.  In contrast, there is no evidence that respondent’s trust 
account was ever overdrawn or that any client was harmed as a result of his 
conduct.  Thus, we agree that a one-year stayed suspension is an appropriate 
sanction for respondent’s misconduct. 
{¶ 10} Therefore, on the board’s recommendation, we accept the consent-
to-discipline agreement.  For violations of DR 1-102(A)(6) and 9-102(A),  
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), we 
hereby suspend Thomas John Simon from the practice of law for one year but stay 
that suspension on the condition that he commit no further misconduct.  If 
respondent fails to comply with this condition, the stay will be lifted and 
respondent will serve the entire one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
 
Thomas J. Simon, pro se. 
______________________