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

Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. King, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-4715.] 

 

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. 2019-OHIO-4715

CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. KING.

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

may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. King, Slip Opinion No. 

2019-Ohio-4715.] 

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

Indefinite suspension. 

(No. 2018-1762—Submitted May 21, 2019—Decided November 19, 2019.) 

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

Court, No. 2017-002. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Matthew Joseph King, of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0067189, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1996. On 

July 18, 2016, we suspended King’s license to practice law on an interim basis 

following his felony convictions for money laundering and attempted money 

laundering. See In re King, 146 Ohio St.3d 1272, 2016-Ohio-4985, 56 N.E.3d 979. 

On December 21, 2016, we imposed a separate stayed six-month suspension based 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 2

on King’s failure to inform two clients that he did not carry professional-liability 

insurance and his failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.1

 

Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. King, 148 Ohio St.3d 602, 2016-Ohio-8255, 71 

N.E.3d 1082. 

{¶ 2} In a complaint certified to the Board of Professional Conduct on 

January 13, 2017, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, charged King 

with multiple ethical violations arising from his felony money-laundering 

convictions. The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and 

aggravating and mitigating factors, and relator agreed to withdraw four of the 

alleged rule violations. After considering those stipulations and the evidence 

adduced at a hearing before a panel of the board, the board issued a report finding 

that King committed the remaining charged misconduct and recommending that he 

be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Relator objects to the 

board’s recommended sanction and argues that King’s conduct warrants permanent 

disbarment. 

{¶ 3} For the reasons that follow, we overrule relator’s objection, adopt the 

board’s findings of fact and misconduct, and indefinitely suspend King from the 

practice of law. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 4} In February 2014, King engaged in a recorded conversation with a 

confidential informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and a 

regional law-enforcement task force. King told the informant, who was posing as 

a drug dealer, that he would form a corporation for the purpose of laundering money 

derived from the informant’s profits in the drug trade. Shortly thereafter, King 

accepted $20,000 in marked bills from the informant and told the informant that he 

 

1. The conduct that King was sanctioned for in 2016 occurred after the conduct at issue in this case. 
January Term, 2019 

3

would deposit the money into his client trust account in amounts less than $10,000 

to avoid federal currency-reporting requirements. 

{¶ 5} King never actually incorporated the proposed shell company or 

deposited the $20,000 in his client trust account. But over the next several weeks, 

he complied with the informant’s multiple requests for cash. After King had 

returned the entire $20,000, he wrote and delivered two $2,000 checks to the 

informant from his personal account. The first check—made payable to the shell 

company that was never incorporated—was never cashed. The informant cashed 

the second check, which was payable to him, within several days of receiving it. 

According to King, the informant absconded with the $20,000 provided by the FBI 

and the $2,000 from King’s personal checking account. 

{¶ 6} King was charged with one count of attempted money laundering for 

accepting $20,000 that had been represented to be the proceeds of drug trafficking 

and two counts of money laundering for issuing the two $2,000 checks. He rejected 

a plea bargain that would have reduced his sentence and required him to surrender 

his law license, and a jury convicted him on all counts. King was sentenced to 44 

months in prison, and his convictions were affirmed on appeal. King was released 

in August 2018 after serving just 22 months of his prison sentence. At the time of 

his disciplinary hearing, he was under house arrest at his mother’s home in 

Cuyahoga County and anticipated that he would be released on December 14, 2018, 

to serve three years of supervised release. 

{¶ 7} The parties stipulated and the board found that King’s criminal

conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from committing an 

illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness) and 

8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit, or misrepresentation) and that his conduct is sufficiently egregious to 

support a separate finding that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer 

from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 4

law), see Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35, 2013-Ohio-3998, 997 

N.E.2d 500, ¶ 21. We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 

Recommended Sanction 

{¶ 8} The parties stipulated that the following mitigating factors are present: 

King cooperated with relator’s investigation following his release from prison, 

other penalties or sanctions have been imposed for his criminal conduct, and he has 

completed other interim rehabilitation—namely, a rigorous alcohol-and-drug 

treatment program. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(4), (6), and (8). In addition, the 

board found that King had submitted eight letters from attorneys, former clients, 

and others who have known him in a personal and professional capacity attesting 

to his good character and skills as a lawyer. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(5). 

{¶ 9} At his disciplinary hearing, King testified at great length about his 

alcoholism and his success in completing—and in some instances leading—

recovery programs during his incarceration. The parties also submitted stipulated 

exhibits documenting King’s diagnoses with a psychological disorder and an 

alcohol-use disorder, treatment recommendations and summaries, and successful 

completion of a residential drug-treatment program in prison. King reported that 

in addition to struggling with debilitating bouts of drinking around the time of his 

criminal misconduct, he was dealing with his father’s significant health problems, 

a difficult divorce, and his estrangement from his teenage daughter. 

{¶ 10} King also presented the testimony of Cuyahoga County Common 

Pleas Court Judge Peter J. Corrigan, who met King in law school, had known him 

in a personal and professional capacity, and had served as King’s Alcoholics 

Anonymous sponsor since March 2015. The board found that Judge Corrigan gave 

compelling testimony about King’s past addiction and present sobriety, that the 

judge emphasized King’s talent as an attorney and his ability to resume the practice 

of law, and that the judge corroborated King’s testimony about the turmoil in his 

personal life around the time of his criminal conduct. Notwithstanding that 
January Term, 2019 

5

evidence, the board declined to accord mitigating effect to King’s mental or 

alcohol-use disorders on the ground that he had not sufficiently demonstrated that 

either disorder was causally related to his misconduct, see Gov.Bar R. 

V(13)(C)(7).2 We also note that King has not submitted a prognosis from a 

qualified healthcare professional that he will be able to return to the competent and 

ethical professional practice of law. 

{¶ 11} The parties stipulated and the board found that just one aggravating 

factor is present—King acted with a dishonest or selfish motive. See Gov.Bar R. 

V(13)(B)(2). Although King acknowledged that he was responsible for making 

poor decisions, the board characterized much of his testimony as “an attempt to 

explain why he should not have been [criminally] charged in the first place.” And 

the board recognized that the certified copy of King’s entry of conviction 

conclusively established his guilt with respect to those offenses. See Mahoning 

Cty. Bar Assn. v. McNally, 154 Ohio St.3d 292, 2018-Ohio-3719, 114 N.E.3d 147, 

¶ 18. Notably, however, the board did not interpret King’s testimony as a refusal 

to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct. On the contrary, the board 

found that he had “whole-heartedly embrace[d] the wrongness of his conduct and 

accept[ed] that he should be sanctioned even if he believes there were technical 

flaws in the government’s case.” Significantly, the board found that it was 

undisputed that although King laid out a plan to launder the money he had accepted 

from the informant, “he withdrew from the scheme before it was implemented.” 

The board also credited King for offering to assist the FBI in its effort to recover 

the funds stolen by the informant. 

 

2. Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7) provides that for a disorder to qualify as a mitigating factor, there must 

be (a) a diagnosis by a qualified healthcare professional, (b) a determination that the disorder 

contributed to the misconduct, (c) a sustained period of successful treatment, and (d) a prognosis 

from a qualified healthcare professional that the attorney will be able to return to the competent and 

ethical professional practice of law. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 6

{¶ 12} At the conclusion of King’s disciplinary hearing, he argued that a 

two-year suspension is the appropriate sanction for his misconduct. Relator, in 

contrast, argued that King’s conduct warrants permanent disbarment because it 

involved funds that were purportedly derived from the sale of illegal drugs. 

Ultimately, the board recommended that King be indefinitely suspended from the 

practice of law with no credit for the time he has served under his interim felony 

suspension and that he be required to provide proof of his continued sobriety as a 

condition of his reinstatement. 

Relator’s Objection 

{¶ 13} Relator objects to the board’s recommendation and argues that 

permanent disbarment is the appropriate sanction for a lawyer who engages in a 

scheme to launder the purported proceeds of illegal drug trafficking. Alternatively, 

relator argues that there is insufficient mitigating evidence to justify the imposition 

of a lesser sanction in this case. 

{¶ 14} In recommending that King be indefinitely suspended from the 

practice of law, the board considered five cases propounded by relator. In two of 

those cases—Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams, 66 Ohio St.3d 71, 609 N.E.2d 149 

(1993), and Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones, 66 Ohio St.3d 74, 609 N.E.2d 150 

(1993)—we permanently disbarred partners of the same law firm who had pleaded 

guilty to single counts of conspiracy to launder more than $50,000 that they 

believed to be the proceeds of illegal drug sales. Jones and Williams had received 

more than $12,000 for their participation in the scheme. Williams at 72. 

{¶ 15} In the three remaining cases, we indefinitely suspended attorneys 

convicted of similar financial crimes. In Disciplinary Counsel v. Gittinger, 125 

Ohio St.3d 467, 2010-Ohio-1830, 929 N.E.2d 410, we indefinitely suspended a 

title-insurance agent convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and money 

laundering for his role in falsifying real-estate closing documents to defraud 

federally insured financial institutions of more than $400,000. In Disciplinary 
January Term, 2019 

7

Counsel v. Bennett, 124 Ohio St.3d 314, 2010-Ohio-313, 921 N.E.2d 1064, we 

imposed an indefinite suspension on an attorney convicted of structuring financial 

transactions totaling approximately $125,000 to avoid federal reporting 

requirements for case transactions exceeding $10,000. And in Cincinnati Bar Assn. 

v. Kellogg, 126 Ohio St.3d 360, 2010-Ohio-3285, 933 N.E.2d 1085, we indefinitely 

suspended an attorney convicted of two counts of money laundering, two counts of 

conspiracy to commit money laundering, and two counts of conspiracy to obstruct 

proceedings before federal regulatory agencies. While serving as general counsel 

for a company owned by a childhood friend, Kellogg participated in a scheme to 

protect $14 million of the friend’s assets from a Federal Trade Commission 

investigation and anticipated litigation. 

{¶ 16} In this case, relator urges us to distinguish Gittinger, Bennett, and 

Kellogg and to permanently disbar King on the ground that King, like the attorneys 

in Jones and Williams, provided material assistance to drug dealers. But we have 

never before distinguished Jones and Williams on that ground. Furthermore, when 

imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all relevant factors, 

including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the aggravating and mitigating 

factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. 

{¶ 17} For example, in considering the appropriate sanction in Kellogg, we 

noted that although this court had previously disbarred attorneys who had engaged 

in money laundering and other financial crimes, we had not previously held that 

permanent disbarment is the presumptive sanction for money laundering. Kellogg

at ¶ 18. And we acknowledged that even if there were such a presumption, it could 

be rebutted by sufficient mitigating evidence. Id. As aggravating factors, we found 

that Kellogg had acted with a dishonest or selfish motive and engaged in multiple 

offenses. But we found that those factors were outweighed by mitigating evidence 

that included (1) Kellogg’s efforts to rectify the consequences of his misconduct, 

(2) his cooperation in the disciplinary proceeding, (3) evidence of his good 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 8

character and reputation, (4) the criminal sanctions imposed for his misconduct, (5) 

his acceptance of responsibility and expressed remorse, and (6) the assistance he 

provided to the bankruptcy trustee in the trustee’s efforts to sell the company as a 

going concern. Id. at ¶ 15-16. 

{¶ 18} Here, the board found just one aggravating factor and considered a 

significant amount of mitigating evidence. In addition to the mitigating factors 

identified above, the board found that Judge Corrigan gave compelling testimony 

that King was a talented attorney who made a horrible mistake, had taken 

significant steps to rehabilitate himself, and had the potential “to regain his license 

and use this experience to help other people.” The board also credited King for his 

withdrawal from the money-laundering scheme before it was implemented. Indeed, 

despite King’s representations to the informant that he would deposit the dirty 

money into his client trust account and incorporate a shell corporation to launder 

those funds, he took neither of those actions. He also rejected a plea agreement that 

had the potential to significantly reduce his criminal sentence because the 

agreement required him to surrender his law license. 

{¶ 19} There is no doubt that King engaged in a serious crime that involved 

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation or that his crime adversely reflects 

on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness to practice law. But based on the facts 

and significant mitigating evidence before us, we believe that King may be able to 

rehabilitate himself and once again establish that he possesses the requisite 

character, fitness, and moral qualifications to practice law. We therefore overrule 

relator’s objection and adopt the board’s recommended sanction.

{¶ 20} Accordingly, Matthew Joseph King is indefinitely suspended from

the practice of law with no credit for the time he has served under his interim felony 

suspension. In addition to the requirements set forth in Gov.Bar R. V(25), upon 

petitioning this court for reinstatement to the practice of law, King shall be required 
January Term, 2019 

9

to demonstrate he has completed the term of supervised release imposed in his 

underlying criminal case. Costs are taxed to King. 

Judgment accordingly. 

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

STEWART, JJ., concur. 

STEPHEN W. POWELL, J., of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting 

for DONNELLY, J. 

_________________ 

Shapero & Green, L.L.C., Brian Green, and Michael I. Shapero; and 

Heather M. Zirke, Bar Counsel, and Kari L. Burns, Assistant Bar Counsel, for 

relator. 

Law Office of Matthew D. Golish, L.L.C., and Matthew Golish, for 

respondent. 

_________________