[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e 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 pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are req uested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographic al or other formal errors in the opini on, in order that corrections m ay be made before the opi nion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2020-O HIO -2991
D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . T INCH
. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e 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 .)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Professiona l Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2018-033.

______________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, William Matthew Tin ch, of Middletown, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0088418, w as admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2011. On September 20, 2017, we suspended his license on an in terim basis upon receipt of substantial, credible evidence that Tinch had violat ed the Rules of
Professional Conduct a nd posed a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

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, discipl inary counsel, charged Tinch with 71 ru le violations arising from two instances of criminal conduct and his representa tion in 12 client matters. Because Tinch did not answer the complaint or respond to our show-cause order, we imposed an interim default suspension unde r Gov.Bar R. V(14)(B)(1) on Sept ember 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 s uspension, we
remanded the matter to the Board of Professional Conduct for co nsideration 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 violation s 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 stipulat ed aggravating and mitigating factors and Tinch testified. The board recommends t hat he be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, that he receiv e no credit for the time served under his interim susp ensions, and that he be requi red to satisfy certain conditions before being reinstated to the practice of l aw. 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 cre dit 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 misconduc t in his representation in 12 client matters. He failed to depos it unearned legal fees into his client trust account, misappropriated funds that he ha d deposited into his client trust account, failed to notify one client of a diversio n-program meeting that required the client’s attendance, and failed to diligently purs ue his clients’ legal objectives. He also falsely told one client’s father that he h ad 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 additio n, he missed client meetings and court appearances and failed to respond to his cli ents’ numerous
efforts to communicate with him about the status of their legal matters, their requests for refunds, and th e return of their files. {¶ 7} In May 2017, Tinch’s behavior became increasingly erratic. Dur ing one client meeting, and in the presence of the client’s minor c hildren, Tinch offered his client Xanax, a prescription drug used to treat anx iety and depression. A few weeks later, knowing that another client had been prescri bed 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 hi s prescription; the client resp onded 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 mag istrate adjourned the hearing shortly after it began and asked the judge to speak with Tinch. After observing Tinch in chambers, the judge was so concer ned about Tinch’s well-being t hat he would not permit him to leave the courthous e until he secured a ride home or submitted to a urine test. Sheriff’s deputies escorted Tinch to the probation office, where he wasS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 “out-of-control, yelling obscenities, and creating a scene.” W hen a deputy attempted to obtain a urine sample from Tinch, Tinch slapped th e empty specimen cup from the deputy’s hand. Deputies then handcuffed him and e scorted him back to the courtroom, still yelling obscenities. After Tinch secured a ride home, he posted disparaging and deroga tory comments about the court o n 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 se ttlement check on behalf of his emplo yer, Kirby, Thomas & Brandenburg, writing “Pay to the Order of William Matt hew Tinch” on the back of the check, forging the firm’s endorsement, and m isappropriating the firm’s $312.50 share of the fee. In October 2017, he plead ed guilty to forgery and one count of petty theft; howev er, the court granted his mo tion for
intervention in lieu of convicti on and held the charges in abey ance pending his completion of a substance-abuse treatment program. After he su ccessfully completed the program, the court terminated his community contr ol on October 15, 2018. {¶ 10} Finally, in July 2017, Tinch was charged with second-degree felony burglary after he broke i nto his mother-in-law’s home an d left her a message on her computer. In September 2017, he pleaded guilty to a first-degree misdemeanor count of attempted tr espass, and he was sentenced t o 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 c ourt’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 wi th 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 ho ld the property of clients or third persons that is in the lawyer’s po ssession 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 de posit into a client trust account fees and exp enses that have been paid in a dvance),

 two violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer with drawing from representation to take steps reasonably practicable to pro tect a client’s interest),

 11 violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to pr omptly refund any unearned fee upon the lawye r’s withdrawal from emplo yment),

 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 fro m engaging in conduct involving dishonesty , fraud, deceit, or misrepresent ation),

 nine violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer fr om engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration o f justice),
and

 four violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4( h) (prohibiting a lawyer fr om engaging in conduct that adversely reflec ts on the lawyer’s fitness to p ractice law).
Sanction {¶ 12} When imposing sanctions for atto rney misconduct, we consider al l relevant factors, including the e thical duties that the lawyer violated, theS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. {¶ 13} As aggravating factors, the partie s stipulated that Tinch had a cted with a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of mis conduct, committed multiple offenses, failed to coope rate in the disciplinary proc ess, 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 orde r to file supplemental materials

. {¶ 14} At his disciplinary hearing, Tinch testified that he accepted f ull responsibility for his wrongdoing, but the board found that his testimony was replete with excuses and justif ications for his misconduct. He emphasized his firm’s poor management, lack o f support, and overhead requireme nts. He also
claimed that the firm’s failure to inform his clients that he h ad entered inpatient
substance-abuse treatment contri buted to their grievances—yet h e admitted that
his substance abuse started befo re he joined the firm and that it (along with his
client-related misconduc t) continued after he left. Tinch lame nted that Ohio’s
domestic-relations laws and his l ack of connections or a mentor in the profession adversely affected his prospects for success. He also attribut ed his chemical dependency to being “heavily overprescribed” narcotics for arth ritis and back pain. And while Tinch spoke about the effect his conduct had h ad on his family, he expressed no remorse for the harm his misconduct had caused to many clients. Therefore, the board attributed a ggravating effect to Tinch’s f ailure to demonstrate true ownership of and a ppropriate remorse for his m isconduct. {¶ 15} As for mitigation, the parties s tipulated that Tinch has no pri or discipline and had made full a nd free disclosure to the board, presented positive character evidence, had other penalties or sanctions imposed fo r his criminal conduct, and established the existence of a chemical-dependency disorder thatJanuary 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-trea tment program and a 52-week aftercare prog ram. He continued to participate in a subs tance-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 si nce his arrest in July 2017. In September 2019, John Widmer, a licensed chemi cal-dependency counselor, opined that Tinch coul d return to the ethical and co mpetent practice of law provided that he comply w ith all OLAP recommendations. {¶ 16} The board also found that Tinch has paid $14,153.50 in restitut ion to the affected clients and his former firm (which had refunded some retainers on his behalf and performed some of t he work for which Tinch was p aid) 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 c ontracts of employment is tantamount to thef t of the fee from the client. The presumptive disciplinary measure for such acts of misappropriation is disba rment”). But recognizing that we often temper this presumptive sanction when an attorney’s misconduct was motivated by addic tion and the attorney has demo nstrated a commitment to recovery, the board recommends that we indefinite ly suspend Tinch from the practice of law with no credit for the time he h as served under his
interim remedial and interim de fault suspensions. In support o f that recommendation, the board primari ly relies on three cases in wh ich we imposed indefinite suspensions, with no credit for time served, on atto rneys who had engaged in similar misconduct while abusing drugs and/or alcoho l. SeeS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

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 o f $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, an d professional practice of law. {¶ 19} Having independently reviewed the record and our precedent, we agree that an indefinite suspension, with no credit for time se rved and with the
additional conditions recommended by the board, is the appropri ate 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 suspensi on imposed on September 20, 2017, or the interim default suspension imposed on September 20, 2018. Within 60 da ys, he shall submit proof to relator that h e has made restitution of $1,000 to Melinda Vandegrift. In addition to the c onditions for reinstatement se t 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 wi th the terms of his OLAP contract, and (3) that a qualified healthcar e professional or chemicaldependency counselor has opined th at he is capable of returning to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law. Costs are taxed to Tinch. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.January Term, 2020

9 _________________ Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. William Matthew Tinch, pro se.

_________________