Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Edwards

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. Edwards, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5643.] 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-5643 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. EDWARDS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Edwards, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-
5643.] 
(No. 2012-0681 — Submitted July 10, 2012 — Decided December 5, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No.  11-053. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Steve J. Edwards of Grove City, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No.  0000398, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1979.  
In June 2011, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint alleging that 
Edwards had committed professional misconduct by withdrawing $69,500 from 
his client trust account for his personal use. 
{¶ 2} The parties have submitted stipulations of fact and misconduct, as 
well as a number of stipulated exhibits.  While they agree that Edwards 
committed the acts charged in the complaint and that his conduct violated 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients in an interest 
bearing client trust account, separate from the lawyer’s own property), and 8.4(h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer's fitness to practice law), Edwards challenges relator’s allegation that his 
conduct involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c).1   
{¶ 3} The panel adopted the parties stipulations of fact and misconduct, 
but declined to find that the evidence established a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(c).  Citing the presence of numerous mitigating factors, the panel rejects 
relator’s proposed sanction of a one-year suspension with six months stayed on 
conditions, and recommends that we impose a one-year suspension, fully stayed 
on conditions, for Edwards’s misconduct. 
{¶ 4} The board amended the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of 
law to find that Edwards’s misappropriation of funds from his client trust account 
involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, and therefore violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c).  Accordingly, the board increased the recommended sanction 
to a two-year suspension, fully stayed on the conditions recommended by the 
panel. 
{¶ 5} Relator objects to the recommended sanction, arguing that 
Edwards’s deceitful misappropriation of client funds warrants an actual 
suspension from the practice of law.  For the reasons that follow, we overrule 
relator’s objection, adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct, and 
suspend Edwards from the practice of law for two years, all stayed on conditions. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 6} Edwards, a sole practitioner with a practice consisting primarily of 
environmental groundwater litigation and personal injury work maintained a 
                                                 
1 Relator withdrew an alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).   
January Term, 2012 
 
3
client trust account.  The funds in that account consisted primarily of proceeds 
withheld from his clients’ personal injury settlements to cover subrogated 
interests in those cases.  Edwards held those funds while he attempted to negotiate 
reductions in the subrogated claims for the benefit of his clients. 
{¶ 7} Between May 28, 2009 and October 15, 2010, Edwards wrote ten 
checks, totaling $69,500, to himself from his client trust account.  The last of 
those checks caused his client trust account to be overdrawn by $832.34.  In 
response to relator’s letter of inquiry regarding the overdraft, Edwards admitted 
that he had overdrawn his trust account and also reported his misappropriation of 
client funds. 
{¶ 8} Based upon this conduct, the parties stipulated and the panel found 
that Edwards had failed to hold client funds in an interest bearing client trust 
account separate from his own property in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), and 
that he had consequently engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to 
practice law in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h).  The board adopted these 
findings of fact and misconduct and also found that Edwards had engaged in 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) 
as charged in the complaint.  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and 
misconduct and find that Edward’s unauthorized removal of funds from his client 
trust account and use of those funds for his own purposes necessarily involves 
dishonesty, regardless of whether he made any false representations regarding his 
conduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 10} Edwards has practiced law for more than thirty years without a 
disciplinary violation.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).  He has fully cooperated in 
relator’s investigation, acknowledged the wrongful nature of his conduct, and 
blames no one but himself for his misconduct.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d).  
He testified that during the 17 months that he was misappropriating funds from 
his client trust account, he continued to negotiate the subrogated interests of his 
clients and pay them as they became due.  There are no allegations that he 
improperly delayed payment of those interests or that he failed to negotiate in 
good faith.  There has been no harm to Edwards’s clients or their subrogees – 
rather it is the public perception of the profession that suffers when its members 
misappropriate client funds as Edwards has. 
{¶ 11} Edwards has made full restitution to his trust account, making a 
$17,000 payment in December 2009 (before relator initiated his investigation), 
$15,000 in November 2010, and $37,500 in December 2010 (after relator initiated 
his investigation), and no clients have been harmed as a result of his misconduct.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c).  He has also submitted letters from a colleague, 
four clients, his two employees, and his pastor attesting to his good character and 
reputation aside from the charged misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e).  
And Edwards has sought guidance and counsel from attorney Richard F. Swope 
who has agreed to serve as his mentor. 
{¶ 12} At the hearing, Edwards testified that he had separated from his 
wife in 2005 [Tr. 38] , and that in 2009, he began loaning her money from his 
client trust account—$53, 900 in all—to support her private investigation 
business.  He testified that he “felt that if [he] loaned her money, it would show 
her that [he] was able to provide for [his] family, and [he] would—it would be a 
January Term, 2012 
 
5
reason for the marriage to continue.”  Edwards’s wife did not repay the loan, and 
at the time of the hearing, the couple was negotiating to dissolve the marriage. 
{¶ 13} After Edwards’s misconduct came to light, he reached out to the 
Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) and submitted to a detailed 
psychosocial assessment, in which he was diagnosed with adjustment disorder 
with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.  He entered into a two-year mental 
health contract with OLAP on November 22, 2010 and has participated in 
individual counseling with Judith E. Fisher, M.S.W., L.I.S.W., since December 1, 
2010. 
{¶ 14} Fisher reports that Edwards became distraught after his wife and 
the mother of his two sons left their marriage in 2005, and that he became 
obsessed with winning her back and reuniting his family.  When his wife 
encountered financial difficulties in her business, Edwards believed that she 
would be more inclined to return to their marriage if he provided financial 
assistance.  Edwards was also experiencing his own financial difficulties, having 
advanced $200,000 of his own funds for some of his environmental cases when 
his clients could not afford to do so, and having increased the financial support he 
provided to his aging parents. Fisher reports that the combination of these life 
events caused Edwards to become depressed, that his depressive symptoms 
adversely affected his judgment and behaviors, and that there is a direct causal 
relationship between these circumstances and his ethical lapses. 
{¶ 15} Fisher indicates that Edwards has worked hard to understand how 
his mental issues affected his judgment and has come to realize that he must 
dissolve his marriage and curtail his involvement in cases that require significant 
outlays of his personal funds.  Fisher further states that with the continued 
assistance of OLAP and individual counseling, Edwards is capable of 
competently, ethically, and professionally practicing law.  Therefore, we find that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
that Edward’s mental disability qualifies as a mitigating factor pursuant to BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). 
{¶ 16} In contrast to these significant mitigating factors, the panel and 
board found only one aggravating factor – that Edwards engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct over a one-and-a-half year period.  Citing the abundance of mitigating 
evidence in this case and distinguishing the two cases cited by relator on the 
grounds that they involved additional aggravating factors such as the respondent’s 
lack of remorse or the presence of actual harm to clients, the panel rejected 
relator’s proposed sanction of a one-year suspension, with six months stayed on 
conditions.  Instead, the panel recommended that Edwards be suspended for one 
year, all stayed on the conditions that he remain in compliance with his OLAP 
contract, continue to participate in counseling with a mental-health professional, 
and commit no further misconduct.  The board, however, recommends that we 
suspend Edwards for two years, all stayed on the conditions set forth by the panel. 
{¶ 17} Relator objects to the board’s recommended sanction, arguing that 
an attorney’s misappropriation of funds from a client trust account warrants an 
actual suspension from the practice of law. 
{¶ 18} We are cognizant that our precedent recognizes that the 
presumptive sanction for misappropriation is disbarment.  See, e.g., Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Hunter, 106 Ohio St.3d 418, 2005-Ohio-5411, 835 N.E.2d 707, ¶ 37.  
We have recognized, however, that this sanction may be tempered with sufficient 
evidence of mitigating or extenuating circumstances and typically impose an 
actual suspension from the practice of law in cases involving misappropriation, 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Bubna, 116 Ohio St.3d 294, 2007-Ohio-6436, 878 N.E.2d 632 (imposing a one-
year suspension with six months stayed for an attorney who commingled personal 
and client funds, repeatedly overdrew his client trust account, and failed to pay 
medical expenses from a client’s settlement); Dayton Bar Assn. v. Gerren, 103 
January Term, 2012 
 
7
Ohio St.3d 21, 2004-Ohio-4110, 812 N.E.2d 1280, (imposing a six-month actual 
suspension for an attorney who withdrew for his own use settlement funds that 
had been set aside to pay his client’s medical bill, the non-payment of which 
resulted in a judgment against the client). 
{¶ 19} Nonetheless, we have consistently recognized that the primary 
purpose of disciplinary sanctions is not to punish the offender, but to protect the 
public.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. O'Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 204, 2004-
Ohio-4704, 815 N.E.2d 286, ¶ 53.  With that purpose in mind, and in 
consideration of the significant mitigating factors present in this case, we 
conclude that a two-year conditionally stayed suspension is the appropriate 
sanction for Edwards’s misconduct. 
{¶ 20} Accordingly, we overrule relator’s objection, adopt the board’s 
findings of fact and misconduct, and suspend Edwards from the practice of law in 
Ohio for two years, all stayed on the conditions that he extend his existing OLAP 
contract for an additional two years from the date of this order, continue to 
participate in individual counseling with a mental-health professional, comply 
with all recommendations of OLAP and his treating mental health professional, 
and commit no further misconduct.  If Edwards fails to comply with the 
conditions of the stay, the stay shall be lifted, and Edwards shall serve the entire 
two-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Edwards. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
_________________________ 
William C. Mann, for respondent. 
Jonathan E. Couglan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol A. Costa, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
                              ________________________