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

Disciplinary Counsel v. Thomas, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-1582.] 

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. 2016-OHIO-1582

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. THOMAS.

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

may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Thomas, Slip Opinion 

No. 2016-Ohio-1582.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Attorney convicted of felony theft offenses and 

misdemeanor falsification offenses for misappropriating funds from 

vulnerable, elderly, court-appointed clients and filing false inventories with 

the probate court—Illegal acts that reflect adversely on lawyer’s honesty—

Conduct involving fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation—Conduct 

prejudicial to the administration of justice—Knowingly making false 

statements to a tribunal—Knowingly offering false evidence—Indefinite 

suspension—Reinstatement conditioned on restitution, substance-abuse 

treatment, and other requirements. 

(No. 2015-1001—Submitted November 17, 2015—Decided April 20, 2016.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the 

Supreme Court, No. 2014-081. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

_______________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, James William Thomas Jr., formerly of Eaton, Ohio, 

Attorney Registration No. 0074051, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 

2001. We suspended Thomas’s license on an interim basis, effective July 22, 2014, 

after he was convicted of two counts of theft and one count of theft from the 

elderly—all felonies committed against individuals for whom he served as a courtappointed guardian—and three misdemeanor counts of falsification. See In re 

Thomas, 140 Ohio St.3d 1224, 2014-Ohio-3174, 15 N.E.3d 871. 

{¶ 2} In an October 29, 2014 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, 

charged Thomas with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct 

arising from his felony convictions. Thomas admitted each of the allegations in his 

answer and entered into joint stipulations of fact, misconduct, and aggravating and 

mitigating factors. 

{¶ 3} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct granted the parties’ 

motion to waive the hearing and adopted the parties’ stipulations. The panel also 

adopted the parties’ recommendation that Thomas be indefinitely suspended from 

the practice of law in Ohio. In addition, the panel recommended that Thomas be 

credited for the time served under his interim felony suspension and that his 

reinstatement be conditioned on completion of his term of incarceration, payment 

of restitution, compliance with all terms and conditions of his criminal probation, 

completion of an approved treatment program for substance abuse and addiction, 

and ongoing treatment for his drug addiction. The board adopted the panel’s 

findings of fact and misconduct, aggravating and mitigating factors, and sanction, 

with some modifications to the requirement for restitution. 

{¶ 4} Following a remand by this court for additional consideration of the 

recommended conditions for Thomas’s reinstatement, the board issued a revised 

recommendation regarding Thomas’s restitution obligation. 
January Term, 2016 

3

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

recommended sanction, as amended by the board’s supplemental report and 

recommendation. We do not, however, credit Thomas for the time served under 

his interim felony suspension. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 6} Thomas was charged in an April 28, 2014 bill of information with two 

third-degree-felony counts of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3), one fourthdegree-felony count of theft from an elderly or disabled person in violation of R.C. 

2913.02(A)(3), and three first-degree-misdemeanor counts of knowingly making a 

false statement or knowingly swearing or affirming the truth of a previously made 

false statement in violation of R.C. 2921.13(A)(10). Thomas pleaded no contest to 

the charges, which arose out of his theft of funds from four individuals for whom 

he served as a court-appointed guardian and his subsequent attempts to conceal the 

thefts by filing false inventories with the Preble County Probate Court. He was 

sentenced to a four-and-one-half-year prison term and ordered to make restitution 

of $208,095.15, to be distributed to his former clients as follows: $115,112.75 for 

the benefit of J.S.,1

 $72,149.40 for the benefit of E.T., $17,487 for the benefit of 

R.B., and $3,346 for the benefit of K.O. 

{¶ 7} Based on the parties’ stipulations and supporting documents, the 

board found that by misappropriating funds from individuals for whom Thomas 

was appointed to serve as a guardian, he 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), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 

involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a 

lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). 

The board also found that his filing of false inventories with the Preble County 

 

1

 The guardian appointed to represent the estate of J.S. settled J.S.’s claims against Thomas and 

received $89,950 from his professional-liability carrier in 2015. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

Probate Court to conceal his theft of funds from his wards violated Prof.Cond.R. 

3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of fact or 

law to a tribunal), 3.3(a)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly offering evidence 

that the lawyer knows to be false), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d). No objections have 

been filed. 

{¶ 8} We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 

Sanction 

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

relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 

sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 

St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. In making a final determination, 

we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in 

Gov.Bar R. V(13)(A) through (C). See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 

Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 

{¶ 10} The parties stipulated and the board found that two aggravating 

factors are present. Thomas acted with a dishonest or selfish motive by using the 

money that he misappropriated from his wards primarily to maintain his addiction 

to ephedrine and to compensate for the loss of law-practice income occasioned by 

that addiction. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(2). He engaged in multiple offenses, 

stealing funds from at least four of his wards on multiple occasions over a period 

of more than six years and attempting to conceal his theft of those funds by filing 

false inventories with the probate court on at least three occasions. See Gov.Bar R. 

V(13)(B)(4). In addition to these aggravating factors, we also find that Thomas 

engaged in a pattern of misconduct that harmed vulnerable clients by 

misappropriating more than $200,000 over a period of six years from the wards he 

was court-appointed to protect. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3) and (8). 

{¶ 11} The board also adopted the parties’ stipulations with respect to the 

applicable mitigating factors. It found that Thomas did not have a prior disciplinary 
January Term, 2016 

5

record2 and that he had made a full and free disclosure to the board and 

demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, fully admitting his 

wrongdoing in his answer and in his agreed stipulations. See Gov.Bar R. 

V(13)(C)(1) and (4). The board accorded mitigating effect to his good character 

and reputation apart from the charged misconduct and to the imposition of other 

penalties and sanctions, including his four-and-one-half-year prison sentence and 

criminal restitution order. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(5) and (6). 

{¶ 12} Consistent with the stipulations, the board also determined that 

Thomas had made a timely, good-faith effort to make restitution or to rectify the 

consequences of his misconduct. This finding was based on an $89,950 settlement 

paid to the guardian of J.S. by Thomas’s professional-liability-insurance carrier, a 

refund of $1,650 paid by Thomas’s father to two other clients who were not 

identified in these proceedings, and an agreement that Thomas’s father would make 

monthly restitution payments of $750, to be apportioned among the three other 

identified victims of Thomas’s misconduct. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(3). We 

reject this finding because the effort to make restitution was not timely and because 

J.S.’s new guardian had to resort to a lawsuit and obtain a default judgment against 

Thomas, ultimately accepting a substantially reduced amount from Thomas’s 

professional-liability-insurance carrier. Moreover, there is no evidence that 

Thomas has made any effort to make restitution to the other victims of his 

misconduct. On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that Thomas’s father has 

voluntarily agreed to make restitution payments of $750 per month for two years, 

with the payments to be apportioned to the victims of Thomas’s misconduct. But 

those payments will only account for $18,000 of Thomas’s court-ordered 

obligation, which currently exceeds $90,000. 

 

2

 During the pendency of this action, however, we suspended Thomas’s license to practice based on 

his failure to timely register for the 2015-2016 biennium. In re Attorney Registration Suspension of 

Thomas, 143 Ohio St.3d 1509, 2015-Ohio-4567, 39 N.E.3d 1277. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

{¶ 13} The board adopted the parties’ stipulation that Thomas’s diagnosis 

of an addiction to ephedrine was a mitigating factor because (1) the addiction 

significantly contributed to his misconduct, (2) he successfully completed a fiveweek residential treatment program after his criminal conviction but before his 

sentence, and (3) his addictive behaviors are less likely to recur if he remains in 

recovery. 

{¶ 14} The board recommends that Thomas be indefinitely suspended from 

the practice of law with credit for the time he has served under his interim felony 

suspension and that his reinstatement to the practice of law be subject to the 

following conditions: (1) completion of his period of incarceration, (2) payment of 

restitution for the benefit of E.T. ($72,149.40), R.B. ($17, 487), and K.O. ($3,346), 

(3) compliance with all terms and conditions of his criminal probation, (4) 

successful completion of a substance-abuse and addiction-treatment program 

approved by the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), and (5) 

participation in an addiction-treatment program up to and through any attempt to 

seek reinstatement. 

{¶ 15} In support of this sanction, the board cites two cases in which we 

have indefinitely suspended attorneys who misappropriated funds while serving in 

positions of trust. While serving as a court-appointed guardian, one attorney made 

unauthorized withdrawals of more than $20,000 from his ward’s account, used the 

funds to pay his personal expenses, made false statements in documents filed with 

the probate court, and pleaded guilty to one fifth-degree-felony charge of theft. 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Zapor, 127 Ohio St.3d 372, 2010-Ohio-5769, 939 N.E.2d 

1230, ¶ 3-4. The aggravating and mitigating factors in Zapor were comparable to 

those present here, except that the parties did not stipulate and Zapor failed to prove 

that his alcohol-abuse and gambling problems contributed to his misconduct. Id. at 

¶ 7-9. Because he had confessed to the misappropriation, he seemed genuinely 

contrite, and his testimony suggested that he had taken steps to resolve his 
January Term, 2016 

7

substance-abuse and gambling problems, we adopted the board’s recommended 

sanction of an indefinite suspension with no credit for time served under his interim 

felony suspension. Id. at ¶ 12. We also conditioned his reinstatement on the 

extension of his OLAP contract and his compliance with the terms of that contract. 

Id. 

{¶ 16} And in Disciplinary Counsel v. Anthony, 138 Ohio St.3d 129, 2013-

Ohio-5502, 4 N.E.3d 1006, we indefinitely suspended Anthony for 

misappropriating at least $118,000 from his employer to pay his personal expenses 

and to maintain his gambling addiction. Id. at ¶ 4. Although Anthony could not 

demonstrate that his pathological gambling disorder was a mitigating factor 

because he had only begun treatment three months before his disciplinary hearing, 

we nonetheless accorded it some mitigating effect. Id. at ¶ 13. That factor, 

combined with his disclosure of his misconduct to the disciplinary board, his 

cooperation in the disciplinary investigation, and his criminal sentence for his 

resulting grand-theft conviction, led us to adopt the board’s recommended sanction 

of an indefinite suspension. Id. at ¶ 13, 18-19. 

{¶ 17} Having considered Thomas’s misconduct, the applicable 

aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions imposed for comparable 

misconduct, we agree that the appropriate sanction in this case is an indefinite 

suspension. But given the magnitude of his theft from the vulnerable people he was 

appointed to protect, his pattern of misconduct over a period of more than six years, 

and his failure to make full restitution, we decline to grant him credit for the time 

served under his interim felony suspension. 

{¶ 18} Accordingly, James William Thomas Jr. is indefinitely suspended 

from the practice of law in Ohio and, in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. 

V(25), his reinstatement shall be conditioned upon his (1) completion of his period 

of incarceration, (2) payment of restitution for the benefit of former clients E.T. 

($72,149.40), R.B. ($17,487), and K.O. ($3,346) as set forth in the restitution order 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

in his criminal case, (3) compliance with all terms and conditions of his criminal 

probation, (4) successful completion of an OLAP-approved substance-abuse and 

addiction-treatment program, (5) execution of an OLAP contract for a term to be 

determined by OLAP, and (6) full compliance with all treatment recommendations 

of OLAP and his treating professionals. Costs are taxed to Thomas. 

Judgment accordingly. 

PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, JJ., concur. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and LANZINGER and O’NEILL, JJ., dissent and would 

permanently disbar the respondent. 

_________________ 

Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson, L.P.A., and George D. Jonson, for 

respondent. 

_________________