[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wolanin , 121 Ohio St.3d 390, 2009-Ohio-1393.]

D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . W OLANIN . [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wolanin ,

121 Ohio St.3d 390, 2009-Ohio-1393.] Attorney misconduct, including misappropriating client funds and failing to cooperate in the investigation of misconduct — Indefinite suspension. (No. 2008-2098 — Submitted December 17, 2008 — Decided April 1, 2009.)

O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-031.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, John Stanley Wolanin of Phoenix, Arizona, Attorney Registration No. 0051970, was admitted to th e Ohio bar in 1991. The Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to prac tice law, based on findings that he misappropriated c lient funds and failed to res pond appropriately during the investigation of this misconduct. We agree that respondent committed professional misconduct as found by the board and that an indefinite suspension is
warranted. {¶ 2} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, char ged respondent in a three-count complaint with violations of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (r equiring that lawyers cooperate in disciplinary investigations). A panel of the board conducted a hearing in the case, and although respondent par ticipated intermittently in prehearing proceedings and stipulated to the facts and misconduct alleged against him, he did not appear at the hearing. The panel made findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommended that respondent be permanen tly disbarred. The board adopted theS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 panel’s findings of misconduct, but reco mmended an indefinite suspension from the practice of law. {¶ 3} Neither party has filed objections to the board’s certified report.
Misconduct
Count I {¶ 4} Daniel Dechert retained respondentto represent him in a personalinjury lawsuit. Respondent filed suit and ne gotiated a settlementin September 2005. The settlement provided for Dechert to receive $1,649.62 and for payment
of his medical bills. {¶ 5} Respondent received the $1,649.62 ch eck, made payable to him and Dechert, in January 2006. But rather than remit the proceeds as required, respondent either cashed the check or deposited it into an unknown bank account. Dechert tried unsuccessfully to contact respondent from March through May 2006, and in May, he filed a grievance against respondent, who finally mailed Dechert a check for $1,649.62 on June 19, 2006. Bank records of respondent’s
client trust account show that these f unds were not on deposit until the day the
check was written. {¶ 6} In failing to pay settlement pro ceeds belonging to Dechert and failing to hold those funds in trust, respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1- 102(A)(5) (prohibiting conduct that is prejudi cial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that advers ely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 9-102(B)(1) (requiring notifi cation to the client of the lawyer’s receipt of client funds and other proper ty), 9-102(B)(3) (requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records of all client funds in his possession and to render appropriate accounts regarding those f unds to his clients), and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring prompt delivery of client funds).
Count IIJanuary Term, 2009

3 {¶ 7} From September 2006 through January 2007, relator sent respondent numerous requests for documenta tion concerning respondent’s use of his trust account. Responde nt failed to provide any documentation showing that he had held Dechert’s funds in comp liance with the Disciplinary Rules. Respondent thereby violated DR 1- 102(A)(5) and (A)(6) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
Count III {¶ 8} In May 2003, respondent accepted the personal-injury case of William and Betty Ann Clark on a contingent-fee basis. The parties settled the case in September 2005 for $6,500. Respondent received the settlement check in October 2005 and deposited it into his trust account. {¶ 9} Later in October, respondent paid himself the $2,400 contingent fee. He then forwarded $2,000 of the settle ment funds to the Clarks, promising to pay the rest of their share by the end of the year, after the expert-witness fee was determined. Respondent failed to pay the Clarks in full or provide any accounting of their funds for the next year, and bank records show that he did not maintain
the funds in his client trust acc ount. On November 20, 2006, respondent deposited $1,700 into his trust account, br inging the balance to $1,708.04. The next day, he mailed the Clarks a check for $1,700. 1 {¶ 10} In failing to promptly pay settlement funds belonging to the Clarks and failing to hold those funds in trust, respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1- 102(A)(6), 9-102(B)(3), and 9-102(B)(4).
Sanction {¶ 11} In making a final determination as to the appropriate sanction in disciplinary cases, we weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors
listed in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on

1. The expert-witness fee was apparently $400.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 Complaints and Hearings Before the Bo ard of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren , 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. Because each disciplinary case is unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take
into account “all relevant factors” in determining what sanction to impose. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). {¶ 12} The parties stipulated and the boa rd found that respondent has no disciplinary record, a mitigating factor under BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). The parties also stipulated that respondent suffered from depression, adjustment disorder, and alcohol abuse; however, the board attributed no mitigating effect to this factor because respondent failed to satisfy BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)(iii), which required respondent to show that he had experienced “a sustained period of successful treatment.” Aggravating factor s are that respondent had dishonest and selfish motives and that he engaged in a pattern of misconduct. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b) and (c). {¶ 13} An attorney who engages in conduct that violates DR 1-102(A)(4) will ordinarily be suspended from the practice of law. Disciplinary Counsel v. Beeler, 105 Ohio St.3d 188, 2005-Ohio-1143, 824 N.E.2d 78, ¶ 44; Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237. We
find this case similar to Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Maybaum , 112 Ohio St.3d 93, 2006-Ohio-6507, 858 N.E.2d 359, in which we in definitely suspended the license of an attorney who had mis appropriated client funds and failed to keep proper accounts. Id. at ¶ 7. In that case, the attorney also suffered from mental illness but was unable to show a sustained period of successful treatment. Id. at ¶ 11-13. Although Maybaum, unlike respondent, had a prior disciplinary record, Maybaum had cooperated during the disciplinar y proceedings. Id. at ¶ 10 and 24. {¶ 14} For his part, respondent has declin ed to fully cooperate in the disciplinary process, with no apologies. In fact, he booked a three-month trip toJanuary Term, 2009

5 Poland to begin on the date of his schedul ed disciplinary hearing, notifying the panel chair just three days before his fl ight. The hearing was rescheduled for his convenience, but respondent no tified relator less than two days beforehand that he would not be attending that hearing, e ither, “[i]n light of the stipulations
submitted.” {¶ 15} Because respondent has shown little mitigation and a dismissive attitude toward the disciplinary process, we see no reason to depart from the
standard sanction for such serious viol ations of the Disciplinary Rules. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspen ded from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly.
M OYER , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.

__________________ Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

______________________