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

D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . M EDLEY

. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley, 128 Ohio St.3d 317, 2011-Ohio-234.] Attorneys — Misconduct — Accepting and seeki ng payment while suspended from judicial position without pay — Indefinite license suspension. (No. 2010-1793 — Submitted January 4, 2011 — Decided January 27, 2011.)

O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT 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 th e practice of law in Ohio in 1980. This court publicly repr imanded 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 th at were erroneously issued during his suspension without pay and made false stat ements 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.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Misconduct {¶ 2} On February 8, 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a onecount complaint alleging th at respondent had violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rule s of Professional Conduct 1 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 pa y from his position as a Gallia County probate judge. {¶ 3} The panel and board accepted the pa rties’ 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 lawy ers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepr esentation) and DR 1-102(A)(6) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (both prohibiting c onduct that adversely reflects upon a lawyer’s fitness to practice law).
Sanction {¶ 4} In recommending a sanction, the pa nel 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 Di scipline (“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’ sti pulations, 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 investiga tion, his cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and his positive character evidence were mitigating factors weighing in favor of a lesser sa nction. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c), (d), and (e). In consideration of th e 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 th is matter, we observe that he did not respond to this court’s initial inquiry regard ing his receipt of the erroneously issued payroll warrants. Moreover, the two letters that he has submitted from colleagues attesting to his good character and tou ting his work with the local high school mock trial program are of minimal mitigating value in lig ht 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 re spondent’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.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.

__________________ Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. William Scott Medley, pro se.

__________________