[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley, 128 Ohio St.3d 317, 2011-Ohio-234.] 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MEDLEY. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley, 128 Ohio St.3d 317, 2011-Ohio-234.] 

Attorneys — Misconduct — Accepting and seeking payment while suspended from 

judicial position without pay — Indefinite license suspension. 

(No. 2010-1793 — Submitted January 4, 2011 — Decided January 27, 2011.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-024. 

_______________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, William Scott Medley of Gallipolis, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0031001, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1980. 

This court publicly reprimanded respondent in 2001. Disciplinary Counsel v. 

Medley (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 474, 478, 756 N.E.2d 104. In December 2004, we 

suspended him from the practice of law in Ohio for 18 months with six months 

stayed and concurrently suspended him, without pay, from his position as judge of 

the Probate Court of Gallia County. Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley, 104 Ohio 

St.3d 251, 2004-Ohio-6402, 819 N.E.2d 273, ¶ 43. He was reinstated to the 

practice of law in December 2005. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances 

and Discipline has accepted the parties’ agreed stipulations and recommends that 

we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law based upon findings 

that he cashed state payroll warrants that were erroneously issued during his 

suspension without pay and made false statements in seeking the reissuance of 

four expired payroll warrants. We accept the board’s findings of fact and 

misconduct and indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law. We 

condition any future petition for reinstatement upon his payment of full restitution 

to the state of Ohio. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

Misconduct 

{¶ 2} On February 8, 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a onecount complaint alleging that respondent had violated the Code of Professional 

Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct1 by cashing state payroll 

warrants totaling $71,405.04 in gross wages and by making false statements in 

2009 claims for the reissuance of four expired payroll warrants. Those payments 

were erroneously issued by the state from January to December 2005 while 

respondent was suspended without pay from his position as a Gallia County 

probate judge. 

{¶ 3} The panel and board accepted the parties’ agreed stipulations of 

fact and agreed that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and 

Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (both prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving 

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and DR 1-102(A)(6) and 

Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (both prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects upon a 

lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 

Sanction 

{¶ 4} In recommending a sanction, the panel and board considered the 

aggravating and mitigating factors listed in 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.”). See Stark 

Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 

818, ¶ 16. Consistent with the parties’ stipulations, the panel and board found that 

respondent’s prior disciplinary offenses and dishonest or selfish motive were 

aggravating factors weighing in favor of a greater sanction. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 

 

1

 Relator charged respondent with misconduct pursuant to applicable rules for acts occurring 

before and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 

superseded the Code of Professional Responsibility. 
January Term, 2011 

3

10(B)(1)(a) and (b). They also found, however, that respondent’s full and free 

disclosure during relator’s investigation, his cooperative attitude toward the 

disciplinary proceedings, and his positive character evidence were mitigating 

factors weighing in favor of a lesser sanction. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c), 

(d), and (e). In consideration of the respondent’s conduct and the applicable 

aggravating and mitigating factors, the parties have stipulated that the appropriate 

sanction for respondent’s misconduct is an indefinite suspension. The panel and 

board have accepted this recommendation and further recommend that respondent 

not be permitted to petition this court for reinstatement until he has paid full 

restitution to the state of Ohio.2

 

{¶ 5} Although we acknowledge that respondent has cooperated in 

relator’s investigation of this matter, we observe that he did not respond to this 

court’s initial inquiry regarding his receipt of the erroneously issued payroll 

warrants. Moreover, the two letters that he has submitted from colleagues 

attesting to his good character and touting his work with the local high school 

mock trial program are of minimal mitigating value in light of his knowing receipt 

and retention of $71,405.04 in unearned compensation from the state of Ohio and 

his initial failure to abide by the terms of his repayment agreement. 

{¶ 6} Nonetheless, we agree that an indefinite suspension is the 

appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct. Therefore, we adopt the 

parties’ stipulated sanction and indefinitely suspend William Scott Medley from 

the practice of law in Ohio and condition any future petition for reinstatement 

upon his payment of full restitution to the state of Ohio. Costs are taxed to 

respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 

2

 The parties stipulate that as of September 1, 2010, respondent has repaid $23,500 and has agreed 

to pay $2,000 per month until the debt is satisfied. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

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

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

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

Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

William Scott Medley, pro se. 

__________________