Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley

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. Medley, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-234.] 
 
 
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-234 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MEDLEY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-
234.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Accepting and seeking payment while suspended from 
judicial position without pay — Indefinite license suspension. 
(No. 2010-1793 — Submitted January 4, 2011 — Decided January 27, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No.  10-024. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, William Scott Medley of Gallipolis, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0031001, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1980.  
This court publicly reprimanded respondent in 2001. Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Medley (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 474, 478, 756 N.E.2d 104.  In December 2004, we 
suspended him from the practice of law in Ohio for 18 months with six months 
stayed and concurrently suspended him, without pay, from his position as judge of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
the Probate Court of Gallia County.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley, 104 Ohio 
St.3d 251, 2004-Ohio-6402, 819 N.E.2d 273, ¶ 43.  He was reinstated to the 
practice of law in December 2005.  The Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline has accepted the parties’ agreed stipulations and recommends that 
we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law based upon findings 
that he cashed state payroll warrants that were erroneously issued during his 
suspension without pay and made false statements in seeking the reissuance of 
four expired payroll warrants.  We accept the board’s findings of fact and 
misconduct and indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law.  We 
condition any future petition for reinstatement upon his payment of full restitution 
to the state of Ohio. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 2} On February 8, 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a one-
count complaint alleging that respondent had violated the Code of Professional 
Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct1 by cashing state payroll 
warrants totaling $71,405.04 in gross wages and by making false statements in 
2009 claims for the reissuance of four expired payroll warrants.  Those payments 
were erroneously issued by the state from January to December 2005 while 
respondent was suspended without pay from his position as a Gallia County 
probate judge. 
{¶ 3} The panel and board accepted the parties’ agreed stipulations of 
fact and agreed that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (both prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and DR 1-102(A)(6) and 
                                                 
1 Relator charged respondent with misconduct pursuant to applicable rules for acts occurring 
before and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 
superseded the Code of Professional Responsibility. 
 
 
January Term, 2011 
3 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (both prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects upon a 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Sanction 
{¶ 4} In recommending a sanction, the panel and board considered the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in 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.”).  See Stark 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 
818, ¶ 16.  Consistent with the parties’ stipulations, the panel and board found that 
respondent’s prior disciplinary offenses and dishonest or selfish motive were 
aggravating factors weighing in favor of a greater sanction.  See BCGD 
10(B)(1)(a) and (b).  They also found, however, that respondent’s full and free 
disclosure during relator’s investigation, his cooperative attitude toward the 
disciplinary proceedings, and his positive character evidence were mitigating 
factors weighing in favor of a lesser sanction.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c), 
(d), and (e).  In consideration of the respondent’s conduct and the applicable 
aggravating and mitigating factors, the parties have stipulated that the appropriate 
sanction for respondent’s misconduct is an indefinite suspension.  The panel and 
board have accepted this recommendation and further recommend that respondent 
not be permitted to petition this court for reinstatement until he has paid full 
restitution to the state of Ohio.2   
{¶ 5} Although we acknowledge that respondent has cooperated in 
relator’s investigation of this matter, we observe that he did not respond to this 
court’s initial inquiry regarding his receipt of the erroneously issued payroll 
warrants.  Moreover, the two letters that he has submitted from colleagues 
attesting to his good character and touting his work with the local high school 
                                                 
2 The parties stipulate that as of September 1, 2010, respondent has repaid $23,500, and has agreed 
to pay $2,000 per month until the debt is satisfied.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
mock trial program are of minimal mitigating value in light of his knowing receipt 
and retention of $71,405.04 in unearned compensation from the state of Ohio and 
his initial failure to abide by the terms of his repayment agreement. 
{¶ 6} Nonetheless, we agree that an indefinite suspension is the 
appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct.  Therefore, we adopt the 
parties’ stipulated sanction and indefinitely suspend William Scott Medley from 
the practice of law in Ohio and condition any future petition for reinstatement 
upon his payment of full restitution to the state of Ohio.  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 Joseph M. Caligiuri, 
Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
William Scott Medley, pro se. 
__________________