[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bursey, 124 Ohio St.3d 85, 2009-Ohio-6180.] 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL ET AL v. BURSEY. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Bursey, 124 Ohio St.3d 85, 2009-Ohio-6180.] 

Attorney misconduct, including misappropriating money held in trust for clients, 

forging clients’ signatures, and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 

fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Disbarment. 

(No. 2009-1255 ⎯ Submitted September 2, 2009 ⎯ Decided December 2, 2009.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, Nos. 08-053 and 08-054. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Charles Edward Bursey II, Attorney Registration No. 

0073962 and registration address in Centerville, Ohio, was admitted to the 

practice of law in Ohio in 2001. On September 30, 2008, we suspended 

respondent’s license to practice on an interim basis pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5a), 

upon finding that he posed a substantial threat of serious harm to his clients and 

the public. See Dayton Bar Assn. v. Bursey, 119 Ohio St.3d 1465, 2008-Ohio4989, 894 N.E.2d 326. 

{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline now 

recommends that as our final disposition in this case, we permanently disbar 

respondent. The recommendation is based on findings that he misappropriated 

money held in trust for clients, forged clients’ signatures, commingled client 

funds with his own, and committed numerous other acts of professional 

misconduct. We agree that respondent’s repeated breaches of ethical duties 

warrant disbarment. 

{¶ 3} Relators, Disciplinary Counsel and the Dayton Bar Association, 

charged respondent with a total of 11 counts, alleging violations of the Rules of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Professional Conduct and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate in 

a disciplinary investigation). Efforts to serve respondent with notice of the 

complaints at his last known addresses through regular and certified mail were 

unsuccessful, and the board served the notice on the clerk of the Supreme Court 

pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B) (clerk is agent for service of process on an Ohio 

attorney who conceals his whereabouts). 

{¶ 4} Respondent, who had appeared for his deposition and knew that he 

was under investigation for ethical infractions, did not answer the complaints. 

Thus, after the board chairman ordered the cases consolidated, relators jointly 

moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F). The secretary of the board 

referred the motion to a master commissioner pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(2). 

The master commissioner granted the motion, making findings of fact and 

conclusions of law and recommending disbarment. The board adopted the master 

commissioner’s findings of misconduct and recommendation to disbar. 

I. Misconduct 

A. Disciplinary Counsel’s Complaint 

1. Count One 

{¶ 5} In September 2007, respondent settled a personal-injury action on 

behalf of a client for $91,948.64 and obtained a settlement check made payable to 

the client, her husband, and him. Pursuant to their contingent-fee agreement, the 

client was to receive 75 percent of the settlement, or $68,961.48, and respondent 

was to receive 25 percent, or $22,987.16. After the client and her husband signed 

the settlement check over to respondent, however, he presented the client with a 

check drawn on his client trust account for only $66,948.64. Respondent never 

explained or otherwise accounted to his client for the $2,012.84 shortfall. 

{¶ 6} Because respondent had slightly altered the payee line on the 

check, the client’s bank refused to honor it. When asked by the client for a 

replacement, respondent stated that he could pay only $40,000 of the amount 
January Term, 2009 

3 

owed. Respondent paid the client $40,000 on October 1, 2007, from his client 

trust account, leaving a balance of $1,948.58. At least $25,000.06 was still owed 

to his client. Respondent remitted another $26,000 to the client in the following 

weeks, but the check was drawn on a credit-union account rather than his trust 

account. Respondent eventually stopped returning his client’s calls and never 

paid her the rest of the settlement money. 

{¶ 7} Because of respondent’s conduct regarding the settlement in this 

client’s case, the board found him in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a 

lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 

1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the 

status of a legal matter), 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from charging or collecting 

an illegal or excessive fee), 1.5(c)(2) (requiring lawyers who are entitled to 

compensation under a contingent-fee agreement to prepare a closing statement 

and provide it to the client at the time of or prior to the lawyer’s receiving 

compensation), 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other 

property that the client is entitled to receive), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from 

engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 

and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in any other conduct that 

adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). We accept these 

findings of misconduct. 

2. Count Two

{¶ 8} Between July 1 and November 30, 2007, respondent overdrew his 

client trust account on 11 separate occasions. During that time, he improperly 

withdrew most of a client’s $4,000 share of settlement proceeds and then wrote 

the client a postdated $4,000 check, which was dishonored for insufficient funds. 

Respondent wrote a second $4,000 check to the client after he deposited the 

$91,948.64 settlement discussed in Count One. From those same settlement 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

proceeds, respondent also wrote checks totaling over $10,000 to pay another 

client’s medical bills and to pay money owed to two other clients. 

{¶ 9} During a period in October 2007, respondent drew down the trust 

account to zero and then wrote a $400 check from the account to an Indiana 

casino. The check was dishonored, and the next month, the casino resubmitted 

the check three times with the same results. Respondent wrote another check that 

November from his client trust account, trying to pay $2,500 in medical bills for 

another client. That check was also dishonored. 

{¶ 10} On one day that October, respondent’s client trust account 

contained approximately $3,000, made up of a $2,500 settlement and three other 

checks totaling approximately $500. Although one of his clients was entitled to 

$1,468.67 (two-thirds of the settlement, less $198 for her medical bills) under a 

contingent-fee agreement, respondent wrote two checks to himself, which he 

cashed that day: one for $900, ($66.67 more than his $833.33 attorney fee) and 

another for $1,400. Thus, by the close of business, respondent had 

misappropriated settlement proceeds belonging to his client, leaving a balance of 

$705.67 in his client trust account. 

{¶ 11} Several days later, respondent cashed a $700 check drawn on the 

trust account, leaving a balance of $5.67. The same day, two checks that 

respondent had written from the account⎯one to pay the client to whom he owed 

$1,468.67 and the other to pay her medical bills⎯were dishonored for insufficient 

funds. Respondent later paid the client with cashier’s checks. 

{¶ 12} Finally, in late November 2007, respondent attempted to pay 

personal expenses for a rental car and cell-phone service with checks drawn on 

his client trust account. The checks were dishonored for insufficient funds. 

{¶ 13} Because respondent had misappropriated client funds and 

commingled client funds with his own, the board found him in violation of 

Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to keep client funds in the lawyer’s 
January Term, 2009 

5 

possession separate from the lawyer’s funds), 1.15(d), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h). We 

accept these findings of misconduct. 

3. Count Three 

{¶ 14} In July 2006, respondent agreed to represent a client on a one-third 

contingent-fee basis in a lawsuit for injuries she sustained in an automobile 

accident. Respondent failed to keep the client apprised of developments in the 

case and rarely returned her calls. 

{¶ 15} In March 2008, the client filed a grievance against respondent. 

While meeting with Disciplinary Counsel’s representative during the 

investigation, respondent offered to complete work in the case for a reduced onefourth contingent fee. The client agreed after respondent promised to call her 

weekly until the claim was resolved. Respondent did not honor his promise, and 

in early June 2008, the client discharged him. Respondent never returned the 

client’s file as requested, and his neglect forced her to retain another attorney with 

less than six weeks remaining on the statute of limitations. 

{¶ 16} Because respondent failed to conscientiously represent this client 

and then deserted her, the board found him in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 

1.4(a)(3), 1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer upon termination of representation to take 

the steps reasonably necessary to protect a client’s interest, including giving due 

notice to the client, allowing reasonable time for the employment of other 

counsel, and delivering to the client all papers and property to which the client is 

entitled), and 8.4(h). We accept these findings of misconduct. 

4. Count Four 

{¶ 17} In August and September 2007, Disciplinary Counsel sent 

respondent a letter of inquiry by certified mail concerning irregularities in his 

client trust account. Although either he or his agent signed the receipts for the 

letters, respondent did not respond. Disciplinary Counsel faxed the August and 

September letters to respondent in November. In late January 2008, after being 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

served with a subpoena, respondent responded in writing to the inquiries. 

Another letter of inquiry sent in March 2008 by certified mail to respondent’s 

attorney-registration address came back unclaimed. 

{¶ 18} In April 2008, respondent appeared for his deposition. He offered 

an updated address at that time, which he also supplied to this court for attorneyregistration purposes; however, the address turned out to be invalid. Respondent 

also promised to provide records, including monthly account statements of 

transactions, client ledgers, and records reconciling deposits and disbursements 

for his client trust account. He never did. 

{¶ 19} Because respondent failed to maintain required records for his 

client trust account, the board found him in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2) 

(requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for each client on whose behalf funds are 

held that sets forth (i) the client’s name, (ii) the date, amount, and source of all 

funds received on behalf of the client, (iii) the date, amount, payee, and purpose 

of each disbursement, and (iv) the current balance for the client), 1.15(a)(3) 

(requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for each bank account that includes (i) 

the name of the account, (ii) the date, amount, and client affected by each credit 

and debit, and (iii) the balance in the account), 1.15(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to 

maintain all bank statements, deposit slips, and canceled checks, if provided by 

the bank, for each bank account), 1.15(a)(5) (requiring a lawyer to perform and 

maintain a monthly reconciliation of the items listed in Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)), and 

8.4(h). 

B. The Dayton Bar Association’s Complaint 

{¶ 20} The Dayton Bar Association configured its complaint, as amended, 

differently from the way Disciplinary Counsel configured his complaint, charging 

in each of seven counts that respondent had violated one Professional Conduct 

Rule relative to multiple clients. The allegations implicated respondent’s duties to 
January Term, 2009 

7 

protect the interests of six clients and to respond appropriately during disciplinary 

investigations. 

1. Client No. 1 

{¶ 21} Respondent represented a client in a personal-injury action 

stemming from an automobile accident. In early January 2008, respondent 

accepted a $5,529 settlement check made out to him, the client, and the client’s 

wife. The settlement terms required the client to sign a release and file an entry of 

dismissal before negotiating the check. 

{¶ 22} Respondent negotiated the check three days after he received it, 

without providing opposing counsel with a signed release or filing for dismissal. 

He forged the other payees’ signatures on the check and deposited it into his bank 

account. He then ignored his client’s calls. 

{¶ 23} The client reached respondent later that January at his office. 

Respondent gave the client a release for him and his wife to sign and return to 

respondent and issued him a check for $2,994, representing the client’s share of 

the settlement. Respondent did not give his client a closing statement, and when 

the client tried several times to negotiate the check, it was dishonored. 

{¶ 24} Like the client, opposing counsel in the case also had difficulty 

contacting respondent. The lawyer ultimately moved to enforce the settlement 

agreement, and his motion was granted. Respondent’s client, however, has not 

received any of the settlement money, nor has respondent paid the client’s 

medical bills as promised. 

{¶ 25} Because of respondent’s conduct regarding this client, the board 

found him in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), 1.5(c)(2), 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 

8.4(c), and 8.4(h). We accept these findings of misconduct. 

2. Client No. 2 

{¶ 26} Another client hired respondent to file a motion for change of 

custody. Respondent filed the motion in October 2007, and in January 2008, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

two discussed filing a motion for contempt of a visitation order. A hearing was 

scheduled on the change-of-custody and contempt motions for early March 2008. 

For the entire month before the hearing, however, respondent did not return his 

client’s calls. 

{¶ 27} The board found that respondent had thereby violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) and 8.4(h). We accept these findings of misconduct. 

3. Client No. 3 

{¶ 28} In October 2007, a client hired respondent to recover damages for 

injuries he had sustained in an automobile accident. Respondent referred the 

client to a chiropractor and told the client that the chiropractor’s bill would be 

paid from settlement proceeds. The client’s treatment resulted in a bill of over 

$2,000. 

{¶ 29} In early 2008, respondent advised the client that respondent’s son 

had been hospitalized, which prompted the client to request the return of his file. 

Respondent told the client that he would “receive less money if [respondent] did 

not represent [him].” Respondent promised to contact the client again but never 

did. The client nevertheless managed to speak with respondent once more by 

having a coworker patch him into a telephone conversation that the coworker was 

having with respondent. The client again asked for his file. 

{¶ 30} Despite their efforts, neither the client nor his chiropractor was 

able to locate respondent. The client called respondent many times, with no 

success. The chiropractor has not been paid and may have started collection 

proceedings against the client. 

{¶ 31} The board found that respondent thereby violated Prof.Cond.R. 

1.4(a)(3), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h). We accept these findings of misconduct. 

4. Client No. 4 

{¶ 32} A fourth client, injured in another automobile accident, hired 

respondent to recover for the damage to his car and for his injuries. In March 
January Term, 2009 

9 

2007, respondent represented in writing to the other driver’s insurer that he was 

authorized to settle all claims for $15,000. Respondent’s client, however, had 

never given him settlement authority. The following month, the insurer sent a 

check payable to respondent’s law firm and the client for $4,250. Respondent had 

earlier agreed that he would not negotiate the check until his client signed a 

release, and all medical expenses were paid. 

{¶ 33} Respondent then forged his client’s name on the settlement check 

and deposited it into his bank account. He told his client, however, that he had 

returned a $4,000 settlement check to the insurer because the offer was too low. 

Respondent has not paid his client or the client’s medical provider. 

{¶ 34} Because of respondent’s conduct with regard to this client, the 

board found him in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), 1.5(c)(2), 1.15(a), 1.15(d), 

8.4(c), and 8.4(h). We accept these findings of misconduct. 

5. Client No. 5 

{¶ 35} A fifth client hired respondent in April 2008 to represent her in a 

divorce proceeding. Respondent accepted the case for a $1,000 fee, with $600 to 

be paid when the client signed the documents, and installment payments for the 

remaining $400 to be made after he filed the complaint. 

{¶ 36} The client paid respondent later that month, giving him $400 in 

cash and a postdated check for $200 that respondent promised not to cash until 

two days later. But the next day, the client learned that respondent had cashed the 

check early, which depleted her bank account. When she next spoke with 

respondent, he denied having cashed the check early. The client has been unable 

to contact respondent since this conversation, and he has never filed her divorce 

complaint. 

{¶ 37} Because respondent misappropriated money from this client and 

then deserted her, the board found him in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), 

8.4(c), and 8.4(h). We accept these findings of misconduct.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10

6. Client No. 6 

{¶ 38} Respondent’s appointment as guardian of a minor child’s estate 

ended in early March 2002. Though he had no further authority or obligations 

with regard to the estate, he made three separate withdrawals in November 2007 

from the estate bank account. During a five-day period that month, respondent 

withdrew $10,475, leaving a balance of $10.92. He then failed to appear at a 

hearing before the presiding judge regarding the account. 

{¶ 39} Because he misappropriated funds from the minor’s estate, the 

board found respondent in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 4.1 (prohibiting a lawyer 

from making a statement to a third person during representation that the lawyer 

knows to be false), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h). We accept these findings of misconduct. 

7. Failure to Appropriately Respond During Investigations of Misconduct 

{¶ 40} Dayton Bar Association investigators attempted to obtain 

responses to all the grievances filed in the preceding six cases, but respondent 

repeatedly ignored their efforts. Investigators sent letters to respondent at three 

separate addresses, left voice messages for him, and sent e-mails and facsimiles to 

him to no avail. Respondent also failed to appear at a meeting after agreeing to 

attend. He once left a voice message for an investigator indicating his post office 

address, yet he did not schedule the appointment that the investigator had 

requested. 

{¶ 41} The board found that respondent thereby violated Prof.Cond.R. 

8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for 

information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation) and Gov.Bar R. 

V(4)(G). We accept these findings of misconduct. 

II. Sanction 

{¶ 42} In Toledo Bar Assn. v. Mason, 118 Ohio St.3d 412, 2008-Ohio2704, 889 N.E.2d 539, ¶ 31, we held that “[d]isbarment is generally the sanction 

when a lawyer’s neglect of a client’s case is coupled with misappropriation of the 
January Term, 2009 

11 

client's money and other professional misconduct,” citing Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 

Glatki (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 381, 384, 726 N.E.2d 993. In Mason, a lawyer 

failed to pay settlement proceeds owed to a client, wrote a bad check to a client, 

failed to pay medical bills from settlement proceeds as promised, ignored clients’ 

calls, and failed to cooperate in the investigation of this misconduct, forcing the 

board to resolve the resulting charges on default. We permanently disbarred the 

lawyer for having engaged in “a continuous course of conduct involving deceit, 

misappropriation of clients’ funds, neglect of clients' cases, failure to account for 

fees, failure to make restitution, and failure to cooperate in the investigation of 

this misconduct,” finding that he was not fit to practice law. Id., ¶ 32. 

{¶ 43} Permanent disbarment is appropriate here as well. Respondent’s 

egregious activity involved many clients who were harmed by his multiple 

violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. He has provided no mitigation 

for his conduct. Respondent is therefore permanently disbarred from the practice 

of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, 

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator Disciplinary Counsel. 

Faruki, Ireland & Cox, P.L.L., and D. Jeffrey Ireland; and Gregory T. 

Scott, for relator Dayton Bar Association. 

______________________