Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Riek

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. Riek, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1556.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-1556 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. RIEK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Riek,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1556.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Commingling — Withdrawals from trust 
account for personal expenses — 18-month suspension, partially stayed. 
(No. 2009-2244 — Submitted January 26, 2010 — Decided April 12, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-010. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, F. Benjamin Riek III of Shaker Heights, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0022703, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1978.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends 
that we suspend respondent’s license to practice for 18 months, with 12 months of 
the suspension stayed upon the condition that he commit no further misconduct.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
We accept the board’s findings of professional misconduct and the 
recommendation of an 18-month, partially stayed, conditional suspension. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent in a two-count 
complaint with violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  The parties 
stipulated to the facts, misconduct, and aggravating and mitigating factors, and 
jointly recommended that the board impose a sanction of an 18-month suspension, 
with 12 months of the suspension stayed upon the condition that respondent 
commit no further misconduct.  A panel of three board members heard the case 
and made findings of fact and conclusions of law.1  The board adopted the panel’s 
findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
{¶ 3} The parties have not objected to the board’s report. 
Misconduct 
Count One – Use of Trust Account as Personal Account 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulated that at all pertinent times, respondent 
practiced law as a solo practitioner and had a trust account.  Between June 2007 
and May 2008, respondent commingled personal and client funds in his trust 
account, overdrew the account on four occasions, and paid personal expenses 
directly from the account.  For example, respondent gave personal creditors 
electronic access to his trust account, and in December 2007, respondent 
overdrew his trust account three times to pay for his personal expenses, including 
rent. 
{¶ 5} We accept respondent’s admission that his conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients or third 
persons that is in the lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation 
                                                 
1. The panel found “by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated the rules as set 
forth in the Stipulations at pages 4 and 6” but then cited only three of the four rules that the parties 
had stipulated that respondent had violated.  We view this omission as inadvertent and conclude 
that the panel and board actually found that respondent had committed all of the stipulated 
violations.  In addition, clear and convincing evidence supports this conclusion.   
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
separate from the lawyer’s own property), 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit 
into a client trust account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance, 
to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred), and 
8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on 
the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Count Two – Use of Settlement Check Deposited in the Trust Account 
{¶ 6} The parties stipulated that on December 31, 2007, respondent 
deposited in his trust account a $10,000 settlement check made payable to one of 
his clients.  At the close of business on that day, respondent had a balance of 
$10,343.92 in his trust account.  Over the next two weeks, respondent wrote over 
$8,000 in checks directly from his trust account to pay himself and various 
personal expenses. 
{¶ 7} Shortly thereafter, the client attempted to cash a check for 
$2,875.60 drawn on the trust account, but it was dishonored.  When the client 
contacted respondent about the check, respondent falsely represented that it had 
been dishonored because the $10,000 settlement check he had received from the 
client’s employer had itself been dishonored.  Respondent also informed the client 
that he would contact the employer about the check and would call the client 
when the check cleared.  On February 12, 2008, respondent falsely advised his 
client that the employer’s check had cleared so that the client could resubmit the 
check from the trust account.  The next day, the client resubmitted the check, and 
it cleared. 
{¶ 8} We accept respondent’s admission that his conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 8.4(h), and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} “When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the duties the lawyer violated and sanctions imposed in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
similar cases.”  Toledo Bar Assn. v. Weisberg, 124 Ohio St.3d 274, 2010-Ohio-
142, 921 N.E.2d 641, ¶ 15.  “To determine the appropriate sanction, [we also 
look] at a nonexhaustive list of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, which 
is found in Section 10(B) 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. Crosby, 124 Ohio 
St.3d 226, 2009-Ohio-6763, 921 N.E.2d 225, ¶ 16. 
{¶ 10} We have consistently recognized that the “mishandling of clients’ 
funds either by way of conversion, commingling, or just poor management, 
encompasses an area of the gravest concern of this court in reviewing claimed 
attorney misconduct,” Columbus Bar Assn. v. Thompson (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 
667, 669, 23 O.O.3d 541, 433 N.E.2d 602, and that “it is ‘of the utmost 
importance that attorneys maintain their personal and office accounts separate 
from their clients’ accounts’ and that any violation of that rule ‘warrants a 
substantial sanction whether or not the client has been harmed,’ ”  Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 381, 2006-Ohio-1194, 843 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 15, 
quoting Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Commt. v. Miles (1996), 
76 Ohio St.3d 574, 577, 669 N.E.2d 831.  See, generally, Crosby, 124 Ohio St.3d 
226, 2009-Ohio-6763, 921 N.E.2d 225, ¶ 15. 
{¶ 11} The parties stipulated that there are no aggravating factors here.  In 
mitigation, the parties stipulated and the board found that respondent had no prior 
disciplinary record, had made full and free disclosure to the board and displayed a 
cooperative attitude towards the proceedings, and had presented positive character 
evidence.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (e).  In particular, at the hearing 
before the panel, respondent admitted that when he used his trust account to pay 
personal expenses, he knew that it was wrong. 
{¶ 12} The recommended sanction of an 18-month stayed suspension, 
with 12 months stayed upon the condition that respondent commit no further 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
misconduct, is within the range of sanctions imposed by the court for similar 
misconduct involving attorneys who have failed to properly maintain their trust 
accounts.  See Crosby at ¶ 19 (sanctions have ranged from a stayed six-month 
suspension to an indefinite suspension). 
{¶ 13} In recommending the sanction, the board reviewed Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Johnston, 121 Ohio St.3d 403, 2009-Ohio-1432, 904 N.E.2d 892, in 
which we imposed a one-year conditionally stayed suspension on an attorney who 
commingled personal and client funds in his trust account.  The board determined 
that this case warranted a harsher penalty because respondent gave his client a 
check for the net proceeds of a settlement deposited in his trust account when it 
did not have sufficient funds to honor the check because of respondent’s 
withdrawal of money to pay his personal expenses.  Moreover, when confronted 
by his client, respondent lied about the reason for the dishonored check.  
Although the client was ultimately not harmed, respondent’s deception justifies 
the longer partially stayed suspension.  Cf. Disciplinary Counsel v. Simmons, 120 
Ohio St.3d 304, 2008-Ohio-6142, 898 N.E.2d 943, ¶ 11 (violation of former 
disciplinary rule prohibiting lawyer from engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation may warrant an actual suspension 
from the practice of law). 
{¶ 14} Upon our independent review of the relevant factors, we agree that 
the sanction recommended by the board is commensurate with respondent’s 
misconduct.  We therefore suspend respondent’s from the practice of law in Ohio 
for 18 months, with 12 months of the suspension stayed upon the condition that 
he commit no further misconduct.  If respondent fails to comply with the terms of 
the stay, the stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire 18-month 
suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
 
MOYER, C.J.,2 and PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
F. Benjamin Riek III, pro se. 
______________________ 
                                                 
2.  The late Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer participated in the deliberation in, and the final 
resolution of, this case prior to his death.