Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Peden

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Peden, 118 Ohio St.3d 244, 2008-Ohio-2237.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. PEDEN. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Peden, 118 Ohio St.3d 244, 2008-Ohio-2237.] 
Attorney misconduct — Six-month suspension stayed on conditions — Failure to 
safeguard client funds. 
(No. 2008-0007 — Submitted February 27, 2008 — Decided May 15, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-068. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, John Joseph Peden of Gahanna, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0021233, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1983.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
suspend respondent’s license to practice for six months, with the suspension 
stayed on remedial conditions, based on findings that respondent mishandled 
client funds in his possession and initially failed to cooperate in the disciplinary 
investigation.  We adopt the findings of professional misconduct and the 
recommended sanction. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged respondent with 
violations of DR 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 9-102(A) (requiring a 
lawyer to maintain client funds other than advances for costs and expenses in a 
separate identifiable bank account), 9-102(B) (requiring a lawyer to account for, 
preserve, and, when appropriate, refund client funds in the lawyer’s possession), 
and 9-102(E) (requiring a lawyer to maintain an interest-bearing trust account in 
accordance with statutory standards), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer 
to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation).  A panel of the board heard the case, 
including respondent’s stipulations to the cited misconduct, made findings of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
misconduct, and recommended the six-month stayed suspension.  The board 
adopted the panel’s findings and recommendation. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} While investigating a grievance against respondent that was later 
resolved informally, relator discovered deficiencies in respondent’s practices for 
safeguarding client funds.  Respondent has since conceded that he overdrew his 
client trust account nine times during 2003 and 2004 and that he was unable to 
immediately refund an unearned $1,500 fee to the grievant as a result.  
Respondent also did not maintain an interest-bearing client trust account from 
December 2004 through February 2005, but continued to collect funds from 
clients.  When respondent did have a trust account, he sometimes used funds from 
that account to pay costs for clients before they paid him.  He also occasionally 
deposited unearned fees in his office operating account.  Respondent thereby 
violated DR 9-102(A), (B), and (E). 
{¶ 4} Respondent also failed to produce trust-account records as 
requested during the investigation of his misconduct.  Relator had to subpoena 
some of these records and had to ask respondent repeatedly to produce others.  
Respondent further failed to disclose where he had deposited client funds from 
December 2004 through February 2005.  Respondent thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(6) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Sanction 
{¶ 5} To determine the appropriate sanction, we factor into our decision 
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 parties stipulated that respondent suffered from a mental disability and that 
his condition is mitigating under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)(i) through (iv) 
(mental disability has mitigating effect upon proof that the condition was 
January Term, 2008 
3 
diagnosed by a qualified health-care professional, that the condition was 
determined to be a contributing cause to the misconduct, that the lawyer has 
experienced a sustained period of successful treatment, and that a qualified health-
care provider has determined that the lawyer will be able to return to competent 
practice). 
{¶ 6} Respondent, who testified to having suffered from depression for 
years, was diagnosed in March 2007 with an adjustment disorder with mixed 
emotional features.  His treating psychologist indicated that he had improved with 
therapy and that his prognosis was good.  Respondent has also consulted with a 
clinical associate for the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), and in 
March 2007, he entered a four-year OLAP contract to continue treatment.  The 
clinical associate testified that respondent is in compliance with his OLAP 
contract, and she described how he had improved since he began treatment. 
{¶ 7} The panel and board found that respondent’s disorder had 
contributed to cause his misconduct with regard to ignoring the disciplinary 
process, but that with treatment, he began attending to discovery requests and 
cooperating in the process.  Other mitigating factors included that respondent had 
no prior disciplinary record, did not act out of dishonesty or greed, and had 
refunded his client’s $1,500 fee.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (c).  
Respondent also acknowledged and apologized for his misconduct. 
{¶ 8} Adopting the panel’s report, the board concluded that respondent 
has a new understanding of how to properly account for client funds and will 
adhere to these practices in the future.  To ensure that he does, the board accepted 
the parties’ proposed sanction of one year of monitored probation in combination 
with a six-month stayed suspension.  As conditions for the stay, the board 
recommends that respondent be required to (1) periodically provide treatment 
reports from his psychologist on his ability to practice law competently and within 
ethical standards, (2) remain in compliance with his OLAP contract, and (3) serve 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
a one-year monitored probation, with the monitor paying specific attention to 
respondent’s compliance with the requirements for client trust accounts. 
{¶ 9} We adopt the board’s recommendation.  We suspend respondent 
from the practice of law in Ohio for six months but stay the suspension on the 
conditions set forth by the board, including one year of probation pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(9).  With regard to the first condition, respondent must provide 
quarterly reports to the monitor appointed by relator.  If respondent fails to 
comply with the terms of the stay or probation, the stay will be lifted, and 
respondent will serve the entire six-month suspension.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, L.L.P., and Lisa Pierce Reisz; Bruce A. 
Campbell, Bar Counsel; and A. Alysha Clous, for relator. 
John J. Peden, pro se. 
______________________