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

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WOLANIN. 

[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.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT 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 the Ohio bar in 1991. The Board of 

Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we indefinitely 

suspend respondent’s license to practice law, based on findings that he 

misappropriated client funds and failed to respond 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, charged 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) (requiring that lawyers cooperate in 

disciplinary investigations). A panel of the board conducted a hearing in the case, 

and although respondent participated 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 permanently disbarred. The board adopted the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

panel’s findings of misconduct, but recommended 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 respondent to represent him in a personalinjury lawsuit. Respondent filed suit and negotiated a settlement in 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 check, 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 funds were not on deposit until the day the 

check was written. 

{¶ 6} In failing to pay settlement proceeds 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 prejudicial to the administration of justice), 

1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 

practice law), 9-102(B)(1) (requiring notification to the client of the lawyer’s 

receipt of client funds and other property), 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 funds to his clients), and 9-102(B)(4) 

(requiring prompt delivery of client funds). 

Count II 
January Term, 2009 

3 

{¶ 7} From September 2006 through January 2007, relator sent 

respondent numerous requests for documentation concerning respondent’s use of 

his trust account. Respondent failed to provide any documentation showing that 

he had held Dechert’s funds in compliance 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 settlement 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 account. On November 20, 2006, respondent 

deposited $1,700 into his trust account, bringing 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. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 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 board 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 factors 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 indefinitely suspended the license 

of an attorney who had misappropriated 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 disciplinary proceedings. Id. at ¶ 10 and 24. 

{¶ 14} For his part, respondent has declined to fully cooperate in the 

disciplinary process, with no apologies. In fact, he booked a three-month trip to 
January Term, 2009 

5 

Poland to begin on the date of his scheduled disciplinary hearing, notifying the 

panel chair just three days before his flight. The hearing was rescheduled for his 

convenience, but respondent notified relator less than two days beforehand that he 

would not be attending that hearing, either, “[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 violations of the Disciplinary Rules. 

Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. 

Costs are taxed to respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

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

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Berger, 

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

______________________