Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Gilbert

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Gilbert, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-522.] 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-522 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. GILBERT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Gilbert,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-522.] 
Attorney misconduct, including practicing law while registered as an attorney on 
inactive status and neglecting client matters—One-year suspension, stayed 
on conditions. 
(No. 2013-0575—Submitted June 5, 2013—Decided February 20, 2014.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-044. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jason Robert Gilbert of Fort Thomas, Kentucky, 
Attorney Registration No. 0074044, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
2001. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, charged Gilbert with 
professional misconduct for practicing law in Ohio while registered on inactive 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
status and for neglecting three client matters.  Gilbert stipulated to the charged 
misconduct, and the parties jointly recommended that he serve a one-year 
suspension.  After a hearing, a three-member panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline determined that Gilbert had 
committed most of the charged misconduct and recommended that he serve a one-
year suspension, stayed on conditions.  The board adopted the panel’s findings 
and recommended sanction, and neither party has filed objections to the board’s 
report. 
{¶ 3} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and suspend 
Gilbert for one year, with the suspension stayed in its entirety on conditions. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Following graduation from law school in 2001, Gilbert took and 
passed the Ohio bar exam but became employed as a Kentucky public defender.1  
In 2002, Gilbert was admitted to the Kentucky bar, and in 2005, he registered for 
inactive status in Ohio because he worked exclusively in Kentucky state courts.  
After ten years as a public defender, Gilbert became dissatisfied with the work 
and resigned. 
{¶ 5} In the autumn of 2011, Gilbert was contacted by the administrative 
assistant to Michelle Wenker, a Cincinnati attorney who was in a nursing home 
after suffering a stroke.  Wenker’s assistant indicated that she needed clerical help 
in Wenker’s office.  Although Gilbert started out assisting only with Wenker’s 
administrative matters, he eventually “drifted” into doing some legal work for her 
clients.  However, Gilbert’s only legal experience was ten years of public-sector 
criminal-defense work, and he has since acknowledged that he was “grossly 
unprepared” for general private practice. 
                                                 
1 Gilbert explained at the panel hearing that Kentucky allows attorneys to practice as public 
defenders if they are licensed in another state and take and pass the Kentucky bar within 18 
months. 
 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
{¶ 6} In December 2011, Gilbert left Wenker’s office and became a tax 
advisor.  He reactivated his Ohio license in February 2012, and at the time of the 
panel hearing, was employed by a company in South Carolina reviewing 
documents for discovery. 
{¶ 7} During the few months that Gilbert worked in Wenker’s office, he 
committed professional misconduct in four matters.  First, Gilbert filed an answer 
and counterclaim on Wenker’s behalf in an Ohio civil proceeding against her, 
even though he had not yet reactivated his Ohio license.  The parties stipulated 
and the board found that Gilbert violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the 
legal profession in that jurisdiction).  We agree with this conclusion. 
{¶ 8} Second, Gilbert met with a former client of Wenker’s to discuss 
whether the client was entitled to money as a beneficiary of a life-insurance 
policy, and he agreed to represent the client.  But Gilbert then failed to resolve the 
client’s question or return his phone calls.  The parties stipulated and the board 
found that Gilbert violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide 
competent representation to a client), 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with 
reasonable diligence in representing a client), and 5.5(a).  We agree with the 
conclusion. 
{¶ 9} The third and fourth client matters are similar.  In each case, 
Gilbert met with former clients of Wenker’s about divorce-related issues and 
collected a retainer to conduct further work, but he did not deposit the clients’ 
money into a client trust account.  Although Gilbert did some work on each case, 
he failed to communicate with the clients, and they eventually terminated his 
services.  Based on this conduct, the parties stipulated and the board found that 
Gilbert engaged in two violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 (requiring a lawyer to hold 
property of clients in an interest bearing client trust account, separate from the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
lawyer’s own property) and two more violations each of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3, 
and 5.5(a).  We agree that the violations occurred. 
{¶ 10} Relator also alleged that Gilbert violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5 for 
charging an excessive fee in one of the divorce-related matters, but the board 
found that the evidence did not support a finding of a violation of this rule.  We 
agree and hereby dismiss that charge. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties violated, the actual injury 
caused, the existence of any aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B), 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; 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 
N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  We have already identified Gilbert’s ethical violations.  
Consideration of the remaining factors demonstrates that a one-year suspension, 
stayed in its entirety on conditions, is reasonable and appropriate in this case. 
1. Aggravating and mitigating factors 
{¶ 12} The board found, and we agree, that only one aggravating factor is 
present—Gilbert committed multiple offenses.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d).  
In contrast, the mitigating factors are absence of a disciplinary record in Ohio or 
Kentucky, full and free disclosure to the disciplinary board and a cooperative 
attitude toward the proceedings, and full restitution to the two clients from whom 
Gilbert accepted retainers.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (d).  
Gilbert also expressed significant remorse for his conduct, and he submitted two 
character letters, including one from a Kentucky trial court judge who stated that 
she had presided over cases involving Gilbert for five years and found his 
character to be “beyond reproach.”  Finally, the board noted that it was unable to 
find evidence of a dishonest or selfish motive in Gilbert’s misconduct. 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
2. Applicable precedent 
{¶ 13} As the board noted, we have not had many cases involving an 
attorney who practiced law while registered on inactive status—and even fewer 
involving an attorney on inactive status who practiced incompetently or neglected 
client matters.  In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Bucciere, 121 Ohio St.3d 274, 2009-
Ohio-1156, 903 N.E.2d 640, an attorney mistakenly believed that his assistant had 
arranged to register him for active status.  He appeared in trial and appellate court 
proceedings, attended a deposition, and agreed to participate in mediation to 
resolve a dispute, all while his attorney registration was inactive.  That attorney 
had no prior discipline, lacked a dishonest or selfish motive, and cooperated in the 
disciplinary proceedings, and we accordingly issued a public reprimand.  Id. at 
¶ 4-6. 
{¶ 14} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Motylinski, 134 Ohio St.3d 562, 2012-
Ohio-5779, 983 N.E.2d 1314, an attorney moved to the Virgin Islands and 
changed the status of his license to inactive.  However, he continued to work on 
an Ohio case, including participating in a telephone pretrial conference with the 
court and transmitting a settlement offer.  Id. at ¶ 5-6.  The attorney in Motylinski 
also neglected the client matter, which resulted in other disciplinary-rule 
violations.  Id. at ¶ 7-8.  In mitigation, he lacked a prior disciplinary record and 
fully cooperated in the investigation, but he also acted with a dishonest motive by 
hiding his inactive status in order to collect his fee.  On that record, we sanctioned 
the attorney with a stayed six-month suspension.  Id. at ¶ 10-12. 
{¶ 15} Here, Gilbert engaged in the practice of law in four client matters 
while on inactive status, and he has admitted that he was not adequately prepared 
to handle three of those matters, which resulted in their neglect.  Accordingly, a 
harsher sanction than in Motylinski is warranted.  But given the facts and 
mitigating factors, we agree with the board that Gilbert’s sanction should not be 
much more severe than the sanction in Motylinski. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 16} As the board concluded, the amount of legal work that Gilbert 
actually performed while on inactive status was minimal, involving only the filing 
of a standard pleading, holding office conferences with clients, and the drafting of 
domestic-relations documents that Gilbert never gave to the client or filed in 
court.  Gilbert did not appear in court, attend any depositions, or make any 
significant legal decisions. 
{¶ 17} In addition, there is no evidence indicating that Gilbert’s clients 
were significantly harmed by his misconduct.  As the cases cited in the board’s 
report demonstrate, we have imposed relatively short, stayed suspensions on 
lawyers who, like Gilbert, neglected multiple client matters but demonstrated the 
existence of significant mitigating factors that overwhelmingly outweighed the 
few, if any, aggravating factors.  See, e.g., Toledo Bar Assn. v. DiLabbio, 101 
Ohio St.3d 147, 2004-Ohio-338, 803 N.E.2d 389 (stayed six-month suspension 
for a lawyer who neglected three client matters, but whose case had only one 
aggravating factor and several mitigating factors, including the absence of prior 
discipline, absence of a selfish motive, restitution, and remorse); Cuyahoga Cty. 
Bar Assn. v. Rutherford, 112 Ohio St.3d 159, 2006-Ohio-6526, 858 N.E.2d 417 
(stayed six-month suspension for a lawyer who neglected three client matters and 
failed to deposit unearned client funds in a trust account, but who had no prior 
discipline, made full restitution, cooperated in the disciplinary investigation, and 
had a mental disability that contributed to his misconduct). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 18} Having reviewed the record and the aggravating and mitigating 
factors, and having considered the sanctions previously imposed in comparable 
unauthorized-practice and client-neglect cases, we find that the board’s 
recommended sanction is appropriate.  Accordingly, Gilbert is hereby suspended 
from the practice of law for one year, but the suspension is stayed on the 
conditions that (1) he commit no further misconduct, (2) he pay the costs of these 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
proceedings before expiration of the one-year suspension, and (3) he notify relator 
or the bar association in the venue where he practices and have that organization 
provide a monitor to oversee his law practice in accordance with Gov.Bar R. 
V(9), if he decides to practice law in Ohio during the stayed suspension.  If 
Gilbert fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and 
he will serve the entire one-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Gilbert. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Christopher R. Heekin and Edwin W. Patterson III, for relator. 
Jason Robert Gilbert, pro se. 
_________________________