[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Tinch, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-2991.] 

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. 2020-OHIO-2991

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. TINCH.

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

may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Tinch, Slip Opinion No. 

2020-Ohio-2991.] 

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

including failing to deposit into a client trust account fees and expenses 

that have been paid in advance—Indefinite suspension. 

(No. 2018-1178—Submitted February 12, 2020—Decided May 20, 2020.) 

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

Court, No. 2018-033. 

______________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, William Matthew Tinch, of Middletown, Ohio, 

Attorney Registration No. 0088418, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 

2011. On September 20, 2017, we suspended his license on an interim basis upon 

receipt of substantial, credible evidence that Tinch had violated the Rules of 

Professional Conduct and posed a substantial threat of serious harm to the public. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 2

See Disciplinary Counsel v. Tinch, 151 Ohio St.3d 1213, 2017-Ohio-7683, 85 

N.E.3d 746; Gov.Bar R. V(19)(A) and (B). 

{¶ 2} In a 14-count complaint filed on June 6, 2018, relator, disciplinary 

counsel, charged Tinch with 71 rule violations arising from two instances of 

criminal conduct and his representation in 12 client matters. Because Tinch did 

not answer the complaint or respond to our show-cause order, we imposed an 

interim default suspension under Gov.Bar R. V(14)(B)(1) on September 20, 2018. 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Tinch, 153 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2018-Ohio-3776, 109 

N.E.3d 1253. 

{¶ 3} After Tinch responded to an order to show cause why his interim

default suspension should not be converted into an indefinite suspension, we 

remanded the matter to the Board of Professional Conduct for consideration of 

mitigating evidence only. 155 Ohio St.3d 1459, 2019-Ohio-1759, 122 N.E.3d 

218. 

{¶ 4} Tinch is deemed to have committed the charged ethical violations by 

virtue of his default and failure to timely move this court for leave to answer the 

charges against him. See Gov.Bar R. V(14)(A) and (C). At a hearing before a 

three-member panel of the board, the parties submitted stipulated aggravating and 

mitigating factors and Tinch testified. The board recommends that he be 

indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, that he receive no credit for the 

time served under his interim suspensions, and that he be required to satisfy 

certain conditions before being reinstated to the practice of law. No objections 

have been filed. 

{¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and 

indefinitely suspend Tinch from the practice of law with no credit for the time he 

has served under his interim suspensions and with conditions on his reinstatement.

 
January Term, 2020 

3

Misconduct 

{¶ 6} From 2015 through 2017, Tinch engaged in a pattern of misconduct 

in his representation in 12 client matters. He failed to deposit unearned legal fees 

into his client trust account, misappropriated funds that he had deposited into his 

client trust account, failed to notify one client of a diversion-program meeting that 

required the client’s attendance, and failed to diligently pursue his clients’ legal 

objectives. He also falsely told one client’s father that he had taken action when 

in fact he had not, and he failed to abide by another client’s wishes by filing a 

divorce complaint instead of seeking a dissolution. In addition, he missed client 

meetings and court appearances and failed to respond to his clients’ numerous 

efforts to communicate with him about the status of their legal matters, their 

requests for refunds, and the return of their files. 

{¶ 7} In May 2017, Tinch’s behavior became increasingly erratic. During 

one client meeting, and in the presence of the client’s minor children, Tinch 

offered his client Xanax, a prescription drug used to treat anxiety and depression. 

A few weeks later, knowing that another client had been prescribed medication 

following a recent car accident, he asked the client to provide him with ten 

Percocet or Vicodin pills; the client responded that he was low on his medication. 

A day or two later, shortly before or after a hearing with the client, Tinch asked 

whether the client had filled his prescription; the client responded that he did not 

have any pills with him. 

{¶ 8} On May 8, Tinch called the Warren County Domestic Relations 

Court to request a continuance of a hearing scheduled for that afternoon, but the 

matter was not continued. The magistrate adjourned the hearing shortly after it 

began and asked the judge to speak with Tinch. After observing Tinch in 

chambers, the judge was so concerned about Tinch’s well-being that he would not 

permit him to leave the courthouse until he secured a ride home or submitted to a 

urine test. Sheriff’s deputies escorted Tinch to the probation office, where he was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 4

“out-of-control, yelling obscenities, and creating a scene.” When a deputy 

attempted to obtain a urine sample from Tinch, Tinch slapped the empty specimen 

cup from the deputy’s hand. Deputies then handcuffed him and escorted him 

back to the courtroom, still yelling obscenities. After Tinch secured a ride home, 

he posted disparaging and derogatory comments about the court on his personal 

and law-firm Facebook pages. 

{¶ 9} In June 2017, Tinch was indicted on a fifth-degree felony count of 

forgery and two first-degree misdemeanor counts of petty theft for accepting a 

$10,500 personal-injury settlement check on behalf of his employer, Kirby, 

Thomas & Brandenburg, writing “Pay to the Order of William Matthew Tinch” 

on the back of the check, forging the firm’s endorsement, and misappropriating 

the firm’s $312.50 share of the fee. In October 2017, he pleaded guilty to forgery 

and one count of petty theft; however, the court granted his motion for 

intervention in lieu of conviction and held the charges in abeyance pending his 

completion of a substance-abuse treatment program. After he successfully 

completed the program, the court terminated his community control on October 

15, 2018. 

{¶ 10} Finally, in July 2017, Tinch was charged with second-degree 

felony burglary after he broke into his mother-in-law’s home and left her a 

message on her computer. In September 2017, he pleaded guilty to a first-degree 

misdemeanor count of attempted trespass, and he was sentenced to 180 days in 

jail, with 169 days suspended and 11 days of jail-time credit. The court also 

imposed $350 in fines and ordered Tinch to participate in the court’s intensive 

drug program for five years. 

{¶ 11} Tinch is deemed to have committed the following ethical 

infractions: 

 11 violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with 

reasonable diligence in representing a client), 
January Term, 2020 

5

 ten violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep a 

client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), 

 one violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold the 

property of clients or third persons that is in the lawyer’s possession in 

connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own

property), 

 12 violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit into a 

client trust account fees and expenses that have been paid in advance), 

 two violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer withdrawing 

from representation to take steps reasonably practicable to protect a 

client’s interest), 

 11 violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly 

refund any unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment), 

 one violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from

committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or 

trustworthiness), 

 ten violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging 

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

 nine violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from 

engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), 

and 

 four violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging 

in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 

Sanction 

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

relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 6

aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 

imposed in similar cases. 

{¶ 13} As aggravating factors, the parties stipulated that Tinch had acted 

with a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed 

multiple offenses, failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, and harmed 

multiple vulnerable clients. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2) through (5) and (8). The 

board noted that Tinch’s failure to cooperate had continued for two years and had 

extended beyond the date of his disciplinary hearing in that he was late in 

complying with the panel’s order to file supplemental materials. 

{¶ 14} At his disciplinary hearing, Tinch testified that he accepted full 

responsibility for his wrongdoing, but the board found that his testimony was 

replete with excuses and justifications for his misconduct. He emphasized his 

firm’s poor management, lack of support, and overhead requirements. He also 

claimed that the firm’s failure to inform his clients that he had entered inpatient 

substance-abuse treatment contributed to their grievances—yet he admitted that 

his substance abuse started before he joined the firm and that it (along with his 

client-related misconduct) continued after he left. Tinch lamented that Ohio’s 

domestic-relations laws and his lack of connections or a mentor in the profession 

adversely affected his prospects for success. He also attributed his chemical 

dependency to being “heavily overprescribed” narcotics for arthritis and back 

pain. And while Tinch spoke about the effect his conduct had had on his family, 

he expressed no remorse for the harm his misconduct had caused to many clients. 

Therefore, the board attributed aggravating effect to Tinch’s failure to 

demonstrate true ownership of and appropriate remorse for his misconduct. 

{¶ 15} As for mitigation, the parties stipulated that Tinch has no prior 

discipline and had made full and free disclosure to the board, presented positive 

character evidence, had other penalties or sanctions imposed for his criminal 

conduct, and established the existence of a chemical-dependency disorder that 
January Term, 2020 

7

contributed to his conduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) and (4) through (7). At 

the time of his disciplinary hearing, Tinch had completed a 28-day inpatient, 

residential drug-treatment program and a 52-week aftercare program. He 

continued to participate in a substance-abuse recovery program through his 

church, and on September 24, 2019, he entered into a three-year contract with the 

Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”). He has been sober since his arrest 

in July 2017. In September 2019, John Widmer, a licensed chemical-dependency 

counselor, opined that Tinch could return to the ethical and competent practice of 

law provided that he comply with all OLAP recommendations. 

{¶ 16} The board also found that Tinch has paid $14,153.50 in restitution 

to the affected clients and his former firm (which had refunded some retainers on 

his behalf and performed some of the work for which Tinch was paid) and has 

agreed to make restitution of $1,000 to Melinda Vandegrift. 

{¶ 17} The board acknowledged that disbarment is the presumptive 

sanction for the misappropriation of client funds. See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel 

v. Longino, 128 Ohio St.3d 426, 2011-Ohio-1524, 945 N.E.2d 1040, ¶ 39; 

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 102 Ohio St.3d 264, 2004-Ohio-2683, 809 

N.E.2d 1113, ¶ 16 (“Taking retainers and failing to carry out contracts of 

employment is tantamount to theft of the fee from the client. The presumptive 

disciplinary measure for such acts of misappropriation is disbarment”). But 

recognizing that we often temper this presumptive sanction when an attorney’s 

misconduct was motivated by addiction and the attorney has demonstrated a 

commitment to recovery, the board recommends that we indefinitely suspend 

Tinch from the practice of law with no credit for the time he has served under his 

interim remedial and interim default suspensions. In support of that 

recommendation, the board primarily relies on three cases in which we imposed 

indefinite suspensions, with no credit for time served, on attorneys who had 

engaged in similar misconduct while abusing drugs and/or alcohol. See
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 8

Disciplinary Counsel v. Deters, 155 Ohio St.3d 478, 2018-Ohio-5025, 122 N.E.3d 

159; Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Lemieux, 139 Ohio St.3d 320, 2014-Ohio2127, 11 N.E.3d 1557; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Lawson, 119 Ohio St.3d 58, 2008-

Ohio-3340, 891 N.E.2d 749. 

{¶ 18} In addition to the indefinite suspension, the board recommends that 

Tinch be ordered to submit proof that he has made restitution of $1,000 to 

Vandegrift and that his future reinstatement be conditioned on the submission of 

evidence that he has maintained his sobriety, has complied with his OLAP 

contract, and is capable of resuming the competent, ethical, and professional 

practice of law. 

{¶ 19} Having independently reviewed the record and our precedent, we 

agree that an indefinite suspension, with no credit for time served and with the 

additional conditions recommended by the board, is the appropriate sanction in 

this case.

{¶ 20} Accordingly, William Matthew Tinch is indefinitely suspended 

from the practice of law in Ohio with no credit for the time he has served under 

the interim remedial suspension imposed on September 20, 2017, or the interim 

default suspension imposed on September 20, 2018. Within 60 days, he shall 

submit proof to relator that he has made restitution of $1,000 to Melinda 

Vandegrift. In addition to the conditions for reinstatement set forth in Gov.Bar R. 

V(25), Tinch shall be required to submit proof (1) that he has maintained his 

sobriety throughout his suspension, (2) that he has complied with the terms of his 

OLAP contract, and (3) that a qualified healthcare professional or chemicaldependency counselor has opined that he is capable of returning to the competent, 

ethical, and professional practice of law. Costs are taxed to Tinch. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 

and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2020 

9

_________________ 

Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

William Matthew Tinch, pro se. 

_________________