Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nance

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nance, 119 Ohio St.3d 55, 2008-Ohio-3333.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. NANCE. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Nance,  
119 Ohio St.3d 55, 2008-Ohio-3333.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 
practice law — Misuse of trust account — Six-month stayed suspension. 
(No. 2007-2361 – Submitted February 27, 2008 – Decided July 9, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-025. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Donald Nance of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0034086, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1979.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
suspend respondent’s license to practice for six months, with the suspension to be 
stayed on remedial conditions, based on findings that he misused his client trust 
account.  We agree that respondent violated the Code of Professional 
Responsibility as found by the board and that a six-month suspension, all stayed, 
is appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, charged respondent 
with five counts of professional misconduct, including violations of DR 1-
102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law) and 9-102(A) (requiring a lawyer to maintain client funds in a 
separate, identifiable bank account).  The parties waived a hearing, and a panel of 
the board considered the case on stipulations and respondent’s deposition.  The 
panel found the cited misconduct and recommended the six-month stayed 
suspension.  The board adopted the panel’s findings and recommendation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} As to the first count, respondent stipulated that he impermissibly 
paid an employee in May 2006 with a check drawn from his trust account and 
without sufficient funds to cover the check.  Respondent admitted that he had 
violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and 9-102(A) by misusing his client trust account. 
{¶ 4} As to the remaining four counts, respondent stipulated that during 
the first four months of 2006, he impermissibly drew checks on or made transfers 
from his trust account 121 times to pay for personal and business expenses, even 
overdrawing the account on one occasion.  Respondent admitted that he violated 
DR 9-102(A) by misusing his client trust account. 
Sanction 
{¶ 5} To determine the appropriate sanction, we consider 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.”). 
{¶ 6} Respondent has no prior record of Disciplinary Rule violations, but 
his license was suspended briefly in December 2005 for failure to register, see In 
re Attorney Registration Suspension of Nance, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-
6408, 838 N.E.2d 671, and he registered late for the biennium commencing on 
September 1, 2007.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).  In mitigation, respondent 
made restitution to the person who cashed the employee’s bad check, including 
paying bank charges.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c).  Relator further assured 
the panel that it believed that respondent had misused his trust account out of 
ignorance, not intentional dishonesty.  Respondent’s acknowledgement of his 
wrongdoing is also mitigating. 
{¶ 7} The parties proposed a six-month suspension to be stayed on the 
conditions that he commit no further disciplinary violations, properly maintain his 
trust account, and comply with attorney registration requirements.  Accepting the 
January Term, 2008 
3 
panel’s report, the board recommended this sanction as consistent with Columbus 
Bar Assn. v. Halliburton-Cohen, 94 Ohio St.3d 217, 2002-Ohio-640, 761 N.E.2d 
1040, in which we imposed a one-year license suspension, all stayed on 
conditions to improve the lawyer’s accounting practices.  That lawyer had 
engaged in much the same misconduct as respondent and presented similar 
evidence in mitigation, but she had also failed to return funds to which three 
clients were entitled, calling for the longer suspension period. 
{¶ 8} We accept the board’s recommendation.  Respondent is therefore 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months, but the suspension is 
stayed on the conditions that he commit no further disciplinary violations, 
properly maintain his trust account, and comply with attorney registration 
requirements.  If respondent violates the terms of the stay, the stay will be lifted 
and respondent shall serve the entire six-month suspension. 
{¶ 9} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
MOYER, C.J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissenting. 
{¶10} I respectfully dissent from the majority decision in regard to the 
sanction imposed on respondent.  Respondent stipulated that he improperly used 
his trust account to pay personal or business expenses on 122 different occasions, 
and that he overdrew the account on two of those occasions.  In addition, 
respondent was suspended from the practice of law for ten days in 2005 for failing 
to pay his biennial registration fees and registered late for the biennium 
commencing September 1, 2007. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶11} Respondent’s actions illustrate a troubling carelessness for 
monetary concerns; such conduct warrants a stricter sanction than the stayed 
suspension that the majority imposes.  I would therefore impose a six-month 
suspension from the practice of law, with no time stayed. 
__________________ 
Ellen S. Mandell, Bar Counsel, and Stuart H. Lippe, for relator. 
James A. Gay, for respondent. 
______________________