Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Vogtsberger

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Vogtsberger, 119 Ohio St.3d 458, 2008-Ohio-4571.] 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. VOGTSBERGER. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Vogtsberger, 
 119 Ohio St.3d 458, 2008-Ohio-4571.] 
Attorney misconduct — Multiple Disciplinary Rule violations, including engaging 
in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law, 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, and engaging in conduct that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice — Two-year suspension, with 
one year stayed upon conditions. 
(No. 2008-0397 — Submitted June 3, 2008 — Decided September 17, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No.  07-067. 
__________________ 
 
CUPP, J. 
{¶ 1} This court admitted respondent, Thomas H. Vogtsberger of 
Bowling Green, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0023305, to the practice of law 
in Ohio in 1975. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommends that we suspend respondent for a period of two years with one year 
stayed upon conditions.  For the following reasons, we adopt the recommended 
sanction. 
Background 
{¶ 3} Respondent was divorced in 2004, and the divorce led to financial 
obligations that he was unable to fulfill, which led to judgments against him 
totaling $60,000 to $70,000.  Consequently, his business and personal bank 
accounts were garnished, so he closed them and began depositing his personal 
funds into his client-trust account to shield them from creditors. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} Respondent admitted in a deposition during the investigation by 
relator, Disciplinary Counsel, that he put the funds in his trust account to prevent 
any garnishment of the funds and that he knew that doing so was a misuse of his 
trust account.  Respondent described his actions as a “conscious decision in order 
to go forward * * * knowing it shouldn’t have been done at the time.” 
{¶ 5} Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in May 2006 
because of his failure to comply with Continuing Legal Education (“CLE”) 
requirements.  109 Ohio St.3d 1464, 2006-Ohio-2403, 847 N.E.2d 443.  He had 
been misusing his trust account since before his suspension, including at a time 
when client funds were in the account.  In August 2007, relator filed a complaint 
against respondent alleging that by misusing his trust account, respondent had 
violated multiple Disciplinary Rules.  Respondent failed to respond to the 
complaint, and relator filed a motion for default judgment pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(6)(F).  The matter was referred to a master commissioner, who made findings 
of fact and conclusions of law and recommended a sanction. 
{¶ 6} Consistent with the master commissioner’s recommendation, the 
board found that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage 
in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 9-
102(A) (all funds of clients paid to a lawyer shall be deposited into one or more 
identifiable bank accounts, and no funds belonging to the lawyer or the law firm 
shall be deposited therein), and 9-102(B) (a lawyer shall maintain complete 
records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming into the 
possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to his clients).  Also 
consistent with the master commissioner’s recommendation, the board found that 
relator had failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that 
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) or 1-102(A)(5) (a 
lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of 
January Term, 2008 
3 
justice), and the board therefore recommends dismissal of the allegations related 
to those Disciplinary Rules.  The master commissioner and board also recommend 
the dismissal of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (no lawyer shall neglect or refuse to assist or 
testify in a disciplinary investigation or hearing). 
{¶ 7} Relator filed objections to the board’s report.  Specifically, relator 
objects to the board’s recommendation of dismissal of the allegations that 
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 1-102(A)(5).  Relator does not object to 
the board’s recommended sanction — a two-year suspension with one year stayed 
upon conditions. 
Discussion 
{¶ 8} In disciplinary cases, the Supreme Court renders the final 
determination of the facts and conclusions of law; we are not bound by the board's 
findings or conclusions.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Reid (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 327, 
330, 708 N.E.2d 193.  Upon review of the record, we agree with the board’s 
determination that respondent’s actions violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 9-102(A), and 
9-102(B), but we disagree with the board’s determination that relator failed to 
prove that respondent’s actions also constituted violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) and 
1-102(A)(5). 
{¶ 9} In a previous case, we found violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) and 1-
102(A)(5) when an attorney deposited his personal funds into his trust account in 
an effort to keep them safe from collection procedures by federal-tax and child-
support enforcement authorities.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Mathewson, 113 Ohio 
St.3d 365, 2007-Ohio-2076, 865 N.E.2d 891, ¶ 14-15.  In the present case, 
respondent admits that he attempted to hide money from creditors in his account 
set up for client funds.  His intent was to put his personal funds in his trust 
account to prevent creditors from discovering the funds.  This action was 
dishonest and prejudicial to the administration of justice. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 10} Clearly, a lawyer may not use his trust account, which is a tool 
established for the benefit of the profession, as a “safe haven” for his money to 
avoid his personal financial responsibilities.  We reiterate our previous holding 
that it is “of the utmost importance that attorneys maintain their personal and 
office accounts separate from their clients' accounts and that the violation of that 
rule warrants a substantial sanction whether or not the client has been harmed.”  
Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Commt. v. Miles (1996), 76 Ohio 
St.3d 574, 577, 669 N.E.2d 831. 
{¶ 11} Thus, we find that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 1-
102(A)(5), as well as DR 1-102(A)(6), 9-102(A), and 9-102(B).  Nevertheless, we 
hold that the sanction recommended by the board is appropriate.  Respondent is 
hereby suspended for a period of two years with one year stayed on the condition 
that respondent (1) satisfiy the conditions of his CLE suspension, (2) satisfactorily 
complete 12 hours of additional CLE in law-office management and accounting 
during the year of the stayed suspension, (3) complete one year of monitored 
probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9), and (4) pay the costs of these 
proceedings.  If respondent fails to comply with the conditions, the stay will be 
lifted, and respondent will serve the entire two-year suspension. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, and 
O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
LANZINGER, J., concurs with the sanction but would not find violations of 
DR 1-102(A)(4) and 1-102(A)(5). 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol A. Costa, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________