Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Muhlbach

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Muhlbach, 104 Ohio St.3d 340, 2004-Ohio-6563.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v.  MUHLBACH. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Muhlbach, 104 Ohio St.3d 340, 
2004-Ohio-6563.] 
Attorneys at law – Misconduct – Permanent disbarment – Engaging in conduct 
involving moral turpitude – Failure to return funds to client – Failure to 
maintain records of client funds – Engaging in conduct involving deceit, 
dishonesty, misrepresentation, or fraud. 
(No. 2004-1394 — Submitted October 12, 2004 — Decided December 15, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-058. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Peter Michael Muhlbach of Parma, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0058412, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1992.  In 1998, we 
suspended respondent’s license to practice law for six months, stayed the 
suspension on condition, and placed him on probation for his failure to cooperate 
in a disciplinary investigation.  Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Muhlbach (1998), 83 
Ohio St.3d 224, 699 N.E.2d 459.  The following year, we suspended respondent’s 
license to practice law for one year after he neglected an entrusted matter, failed 
to carry out an employment contract, and again failed to cooperate with a 
disciplinary investigation.  Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Muhlbach (1999), 86 Ohio 
St.3d 547, 715 N.E.2d 1134.  He was reinstated to practice on March 27, 2001.  
See Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Muhlbach (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 1248, 745 
N.E.2d 1043. 
{¶ 2} Respondent has now committed additional disciplinary violations.  
The parties have signed a statement stipulating to the following facts: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} From July 1997 until May 2002, respondent served as a court-
appointed custodian for two minor children who were to receive payments from a 
trust established by the children’s grandfather.  In July 1997, respondent received 
two checks, each in the amount of $18,028.10, representing distributions from the 
trust to the two minor children.  Though respondent properly opened two accounts 
for the children and deposited the funds into those accounts in August 1997, he 
issued checks to himself totaling $24,600 from those accounts between September 
1997 and July 2000.  Most of those funds were converted for respondent’s own 
personal use. 
{¶ 4} Throughout much of 2001, the parents of the minor children whose 
funds respondent was to oversee tried to contact him to obtain an accounting of 
their children’s custodial accounts.  In January 2002, respondent admitted to the 
parents that he had converted the children’s money for his own use, and he 
promised to repay the funds.  In May 2002, the Cuyahoga County Probate Court 
removed respondent as the custodian for the funds. 
{¶ 5} In August 2003, respondent entered pleas of no contest to two 
counts of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02.  Both counts are felonies of the fourth 
degree, and pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5) (interim suspension upon notice of 
felony conviction), we suspended respondent’s law license again on January 2, 
2004.  See In re Muhlbach, 101 Ohio St.3d 1407, 2004-Ohio-11, 800 N.E.2d 
1175.  Respondent was sentenced to six months in prison – which he has now 
served – and to five years of community control.  He has repaid $1,400 to the 
parents of the minor children whose trust funds he converted, and he has promised 
to pay restitution of $23,200 to the Clients’ Security Fund. 
{¶ 6} Respondent has admitted violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) (barring 
illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (barring conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 9-102(B)(3) (requiring 
an attorney to maintain complete records of client funds and to render appropriate 
January Term, 2004 
3 
accounts to the client regarding those funds), and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring an 
attorney to promptly pay or deliver funds that a client is entitled to receive). 
{¶ 7} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court heard testimony in June 2004 about respondent’s 
actions.  Based on respondent’s admissions and on testimony at the hearing, the 
panel unanimously found that respondent had in fact violated the four cited 
Disciplinary Rules.  Adopting the panel’s report, the board likewise found that 
respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 9-102(B)(3), and 9-
102(B)(4). 
{¶ 8} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of respondent’s case.  See 
Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The panel noted that respondent had a substantial record of 
misconduct, BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), and had engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct and multiple offenses by writing numerous checks to himself from the 
custodial accounts over the course of three years.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) 
and (d).  Moreover, in committing his crimes, respondent had acted dishonestly 
and out of self-interest to the significant detriment of particularly vulnerable 
victims, children.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b) and (h). 
{¶ 9} The panel also found that respondent did not make full and free 
disclosure of his wrongdoing during the disciplinary process and that he had not 
made a good faith effort to pay restitution or to rectify the consequences of his 
actions.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e) and (i).  And though respondent 
blamed his misconduct on his abuse of alcohol, the panel determined that 
respondent had failed to demonstrate by competent, credible evidence that any 
chemical dependency contributed to his misconduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(g)(ii). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 10} The panel recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred.  
The board adopted that recommendation, along with the panel’s findings of fact 
and conclusions of law. 
{¶ 11} Upon review, we agree that respondent committed the misconduct 
found by the board and that disbarment is required.  “The presumptive sanction 
for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment.”  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Fernandez, 99 Ohio St.3d 426, 2003-Ohio-4078, 793 N.E.2d 434, ¶ 9.  And 
disbarment is also appropriate when an attorney is convicted of theft offenses.  
See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Blake, 100 Ohio St.3d 298, 2003-Ohio-5755, 798 
N.E.2d 610, ¶ 7.  Moreover, disbarment is “[t]he normal penalty for continuing to 
practice law while under suspension.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Allison, 98 Ohio 
St.3d 322, 2003-Ohio-776, 784 N.E.2d 695, ¶ 12. 
{¶ 12} “When a lawyer, who has taken responsibility for a client’s papers 
or property, commingles client funds or dissipates that property, that lawyer not 
only ill serves the client but also contributes to the erosion of public trust in the 
profession.”  Miami Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hallows (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 75, 77, 676 
N.E.2d 517.  Particularly troubling in this case is the years-long period of time 
during which respondent’s deceptive and illegal conduct continued, his 
commission of some of that misconduct while he was under suspension from the 
practice of law for other misconduct, and his apparent lack of effort to repay the 
money that he took from the children’s trust accounts. 
{¶ 13} Accordingly, respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2004 
5 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________