[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as ErieHuron Cty. Bar Assn. v. Smith, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-881.] 

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. 2016-OHIO-881

ERIE-HURON COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SMITH.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Erie-Huron Cty. Bar Assn. v. Smith, Slip Opinion No. 

2016-Ohio-881.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—

Indefinite suspension. 

(No. 2015-1632—Submitted November 17, 2015—Decided March 10, 2016.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 

Court of Ohio, No. 2015-012. 

_______________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Charles Ross Smith III, of Ann Arbor, Michigan, 

Attorney Registration No. 0020187, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 

1978. In February 2015, relator, Erie-Huron County Bar Association, charged him 

with professional misconduct for, among other things, collecting retainers from 

clients but then failing to complete the work or to refund their money. Based on 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

the parties’ stipulations and the evidence presented at a three-member panel hearing 

of the Board of Professional Conduct, the board found that Smith engaged in most 

of the charged misconduct and recommends that we indefinitely suspend him from 

the practice of law, with conditions on any potential reinstatement. Neither party 

has filed objections to the board’s recommendation. Based upon our independent 

review of the record, we agree with the board’s findings of misconduct and the 

recommended sanction. 

Misconduct

{¶ 2} After spending most of his legal career working for other entities, 

Smith opened a solo law practice in 2008, focusing primarily in bankruptcy law. 

However, in February 2014, he sent a letter to disciplinary counsel indicating that 

his deteriorating physical health had caused him to close down his practice. His 

letter further stated that many of his clients had paid in advance for legal fees and 

court costs and that he was unable to complete the promised work or immediately 

refund their money. Relator subsequently received a series of grievances against 

Smith from some of those former clients. 

{¶ 3} After an investigation, relator discovered that in 43 separate matters, 

clients had paid Smith to file bankruptcy petitions on their behalves, but he had 

failed to file the petitions or to return their money. Indeed, the parties stipulated 

that Smith owes $36,799.69 to those clients. Additionally, relator discovered that 

Smith had failed to deposit those advanced funds into his client trust account and 

instead had deposited the money into another bank account, which he drew from to 

pay various operating expenses for his law office. 

{¶ 4} Based on this conduct, the parties stipulated and the board found that 

Smith had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable 

diligence in representing a client), 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), 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit advanced legal fees and expenses 
January Term, 2016 

3

into a client trust account to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or 

expenses incurred), and 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly refund any 

unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment). 

{¶ 5} Additionally, during its investigation, relator discovered that since 

July 2013, Smith had failed to notify his clients that he lacked professional liability 

insurance. Thus, the parties stipulated and the board found that Smith had also 

violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c) (requiring a lawyer to inform a client in writing if the 

lawyer does not maintain professional liability insurance). 

{¶ 6} We agree with these findings of misconduct. We also accept the 

board’s recommendation to dismiss the remaining charges in relator’s complaint. 

Sanction

{¶ 7} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 

several 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 listed in Gov.Bar 

R. V(13). 

{¶ 8} The board found the following aggravating factors: Smith exhibited 

a pattern of misconduct; he committed multiple offenses; his clients were 

vulnerable and harmed by his misconduct, as some were in desperate financial 

straits and relying on him to protect them from creditors; and he failed to make 

restitution. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3), (4), (8), and (9). In mitigation, the board 

found that he has no prior discipline and he fully cooperated in the disciplinary 

process. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) and (4). The board acknowledged that 

Smith’s physical health likely caused him to close his practice, but because he did 

not submit any substantiating medical evidence at the hearing, the board could not 

conclude that his deteriorating health condition was a mitigating factor. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

{¶ 9} As a sanction, the parties jointly recommended that Smith be 

indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. The board agreed and added 

several conditions on any potential reinstatement, including that he make full 

restitution to all affected clients. To support its recommendation, the board cited 

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Britt, 133 Ohio St.3d 217, 2012-Ohio-4541, 977 N.E.2d 

620, in which we indefinitely suspended an attorney for collecting over $40,000 in 

retainers and filing fees from more than 40 clients but then failing to perform the 

promised work or to refund his clients’ money. The attorney in Britt also failed to 

deposit those advanced fees into a client trust account, and he engaged in dishonest 

conduct. Id. at ¶ 13-17. Although we noted that disbarment is the presumptive 

sanction for misappropriation of client funds, we concluded that sufficient 

mitigating circumstances were present to warrant an indefinite suspension, 

including that the attorney had no prior discipline, he cooperated in the disciplinary 

process, he admitted to the misconduct, he helped identify the amount of money he 

had received from each client, and he made arrangements with another attorney to 

complete his clients’ representations. Id. at ¶ 22, 28-32. 

{¶ 10} We agree with the board that Britt is instructive here. Smith’s 

misconduct is analogous to the attorney misconduct in Britt, and there are similar 

mitigating factors, including that Smith has no prior discipline in an otherwise 

lengthy career, he fully cooperated in the disciplinary process, he admitted to the 

charged misconduct, and he helped determine the amount he received from each 

client and the amount still owed. And unlike the attorney in Britt, Smith selfreported his conduct to disciplinary authorities. 

{¶ 11} Thus, having considered Smith’s misconduct, the aggravating and 

mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed in comparable cases, we adopt the 

board’s recommended sanction. Charles Ross Smith III is indefinitely suspended 

from the practice of law in Ohio. Any future reinstatement shall be conditioned on 

Smith (1) making full restitution to all affected clients in the total amount of 
January Term, 2016 

5

$36,799.69, (2) paying the costs of this matter, (3) committing no further 

misconduct, (4) obtaining a passing score on the multistate professionalresponsibility examination, and (5) completing 12 hours of continuing-legaleducation classes with an emphasis on law-office management and management of 

client trust accounts, in addition to meeting all other biennial continuing-legaleducation requirements. In addition, if Smith is reinstated to the practice of law, he 

must serve a two-year period of monitored probation. Costs are taxed to Smith. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Nicholas J. Smith, Bar Counsel, for relator. 

Charles Ross Smith III, pro se. 

_________________