[ Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Purola , Slip Opinion No. 2023

- Ohio

- 1768.]

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.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2023

- O HIO - 1768
D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v. P UROLA . [ Until this opinion app ears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Purola , Slip Opinion No.

2023

- Ohio

- 1768 .] Attorneys

—

Misconduct

— Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct

— Six

month suspension. (No. 2022

- 0350

— Submitted February 7, 2023

— Decided May 31 , 20 2 3 .)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court, No. 2022

- 003

.

_______________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Albert Linden Purola, last known attorney

- registration
address i n Willoughby, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0010275, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1970. {¶ 2} On March 1, 2022, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint
with the Board of Professional Conduct alleging that Purola had charged a clientS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 excessive fees and had misus ed his client trust account. Purola failed to answer the complaint, and on May 4, 2022, we imposed an interim default suspension pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(14)(B)(1). 168 Ohio St.3d 1247, 2022

- Ohio

- 1476, 200 N.E.3d
1173. On July 13, 2022, we found him in contempt because he had not ti mely complied with our default

- suspension order. 167 Ohio St.3d 1454, 2022

- Ohio

2402, 190 N.E.3d 630. {¶ 3} On August 4, 2022, we issued an order to show cause directing Purola to explain why his interim default suspension should not be converted into an
indefi nite suspension. Purola filed objections , and on September 8, 2022, we remanded the matter to the board for consideration of mitigation evidence only. 167 Ohio St.3d 1506, 2022

- Ohio

- 3128 , 194 N.E.3d 370

. Because of Purola’s default and failure to timely move this court for leave to answer the charges against him, he is deem e d to have committed the charged ethical violations. See Gov.Bar R. V(14)(A) and (C); Disciplinary Counsel v. Tinch , 160 Ohio St.3d 165, 2020

- Ohio

- 2991, 154 N.E.3d 78, ¶ 4

. {¶ 4} On remand, the board ’s director appointed a three

- member panel to
hear the mitigation evidence , and the panel chair held a prehearing telephone
conference with the parties

. B ecause Purola currently resides in an assisted

- living community in Florida, the panel hearing was scheduled for video teleconferencing
to facilitate his participation. Purola, however, failed to appear for the November 7, 2022 panel hearing. {¶ 5} The board issued a report recommending that we suspend Purola’s
license for six months and co ndition his reinstatement on his reimbursing the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection for the amount awarded against him

. Neither party has objected to the board’s report. Based on our review of the record, we adopt the board’s report and recommended sanction.January Term, 2023

3 Misconduct The Dykes m atters {¶ 6} On October 1, 2020, Ronnie Dykes was charged with felonious
assault and other offense s in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas (here in after, the “assault case”)

. On October 8, he was charged in a separate case with drug possession and trafficking (here in after, the “drug case”)

. {¶ 7} About a week later , Purola agreed to represent Dykes in the assault

case

— including trial, if necessary

— for a flat fee of $10,000. Lakeisha Jackson, Dykes’s friend, paid the fee in cash. The day after receiving the cash, Purola deposited only $7,950 into his client trust account, despite not yet having completed any work in the case. {¶ 8} Purola also agreed to represent Dykes in the drug case but only for the purpose of filing a motion to suppress. On or about October 29, Jackson paid Purola $2,000 in cash , and l ater that day, Purola deposited $1,700 of the fee in to his client trust account. Jackson paid Purola an additional $500 in cash about a week later ; Purola did not deposit any of those funds into his client trust account. Nor did he give Ja ckson receipts for any of her payments to him

. {¶ 9} On December 18, 2020, Jackson sent Purola a text message stating that he had “done nothing” for Dykes and discharging him from representing Dykes
in the assault and drug cases. She also request ed a refund. Purola refused to refund any of the advanced legal fees, replying, “ Since your unilateral decision to prevent me from performing my part of the agreement you are entitled to no refund and will get none from me. The Supreme Court [h]as establis hed a program for fee disputes and that would be your remedy. ” After confirming with Dykes that he had been
terminated , Purola moved to withdraw from Dykes’s cases , and the court appointed
new counsel. {¶ 10} Purola did not document the tasks he performed for Dykes or the
time he had spent on Dykes’s matters

. Court records showed that on October 23,S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 2020, Purola filed a notice of appearance in the assault case and a three

- paragraph motion to reinstate Dykes’s bond , even though the court had already denied a
motion to reinstate bond filed by Dykes’s former counsel a few weeks earlier

. Purola appeared for a November 9 hearing on his motion to reinstate bond , which
the court denied less than an hour later . During the hearing, Purola stated that he had not yet accessed the prosecutor’s online

- discovery portal, even though Dykes’s
former counsel had forwarded him the link to the portal

. In the drug case, Purola filed a notice of appearance on November 10. {¶ 11} On November 17, Purola filed a motio n for a continuance in both cases, asserting that he had not yet had sufficient time to prepare a proper defense and that discovery had not been completed. Two days later, the court granted the motion and scheduled a trial in the assault case for January 25, 2021. On the same day, an assistant prosecutor emailed Purola a plea offer for both cases. At that point, Purola downloaded the discovery that the prosecution had provided through the discovery portal. On December 11, 2020, Purola sent the assistant prosecutor a letter stating that the assault case should be dismissed, and on December 18 , he
filed a five

- paragraph motion to unseal grand

- jury testimony. But on the same date , Jackson sent Purola the text message discharging him from the representation. {¶ 12} In the 65 days that Purola represented Dykes, he met with Dykes six times at the county jail for a total of approximately five hours. Although Dykes
had advised Purola that he wanted the assault case dismissed or to be heard by a jury and Purola had agreed to represent Dykes through trial, he never interviewed witnesses, requested additional discovery, or engaged in any investigative
activities. In the drug case, Purola never filed the motion to suppress , which was the purpose of the limited representation

. {¶ 13} Relator’s complaint alleged that Purola’s receipt of $12,500 in legal fees was clearly excessive based on the minimal work that he had performed. AndJanuary Term, 2023

5 although he was fully paid in advance and was discharged before completing his representation, he refused to refund any portion of the fees he had received. {¶ 14} As alleged in relator’s complaint, Purola’s conduct is deemed to have violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit advance legal fees and expenses into a client trust account, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred), and 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly refund any unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment)

. Client

- trust

- account violations {¶ 15} On October 1, 2020, the balance in Purola’s client trust account was $13.13. As noted above, later in October 2020, he deposited into his client trust

account $9,650 of the $12,500 cash that Jackson had paid him. On November 2, he deposited into the trust account a settlement check for $1,043.65 that related to an accident involving his vehicle ; t he funds did not relate to any client matter. {¶ 16} Between October 21 and December 2, 2020, Purola withdrew funds
from his client trust account on 28 occasions. Three withdrawals were to pay personal expenses. He ultimately withdrew the entire amount received from
Jackson that he had deposited. Therefore, c onsidering that h e kept $2,850 in cash
that he had initially received from her , by December 2 , he had esse ntially paid
himself the full $12,500 fee for Dykes’s cases , even though he was only 49 days
into the representation

. Purola also failed to maintain a client ledger for the Dykes

matters , and during the representation, he failed to maintain a general ledger for or perform and retain a monthly reconciliation of his client trust account. {¶ 17} In addition, in November and December 2020 , Purola’s housekeep er stole five of his client

- trust

- account checks , forged his name on th ose checks, and withdrew $830 from the account . One of those checks caused an overdraft. PurolaS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 did not report the forged checks to law enforcement or seek repayment from his housekeeper. {¶ 18} On January 11, 2021, Purola transferred money into his client trust

account to mak e the balance current and then closed the account. Even before we imposed his interim default suspension, Purola had registered as an attorney on
inactive status

. T herefore, he no longer maintains a client trust account

. {¶ 19} As alleged in relator’s complaint, Purola’s conduct is deemed to have violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold funds belonging to a client in a client trust account, separate ly from the lawyer’s own property), 1.15(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to maint ain a record for each client on whose behalf funds are held); 1.15(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for the lawyer’s client trust account, setting forth the name of the account, the date, the amount, and client affected by each credit and deb it, and the balance in the account), and 1.15(a)(5) (requiring a lawyer to perform and retain a monthly reconciliation of the funds held in the lawyer’s client trust account)

. Failure to report funds {¶ 20} Relator’s complaint also alleged that Purola failed to r eport the $12,500 in cash that he received from Jackson to the Internal Revenue Service , as required by federal law. Relator alleged that this conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) ( prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on t he lawyer’s fitness to practice law). Pursuant to his default and failure to timely move this court for leave to answer the pending complaint, he is deemed to have
committed th is violation. Sanction {¶ 21} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we cons ider 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.January Term, 2023

7 {¶ 22} As for aggravating factors, the board found that Purola had had a dishonest or selfish motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple
offenses , failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, harmed a vulnerable client, and failed to make any restitution. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(2) through (5), (7), (8), and (9). Because Purola did not attend the panel hearing or offer any mitigating evidence, the board found no mitigating factors. {¶ 23} The board cited three cases with facts and rule violations t hat it found

were similar to those here. In Disciplinary Counsel v. Summers , 131 Ohio St.3d 467, 2012

- Ohio

- 1144, 967 N.E.2d 183, an attorney had charged a $15,000 flat fee
for a criminal case but failed to see the case through to trial , as he had promised he
would

. We found that the attorney had collected a clearly excessive fee, failed to promptly refund his unearned fee after withdrawing from the representation , and engaged in conduct that adversely reflect ed on his fitness to practice law

. Num erous aggravating factors were present, including that the attorney had a dishonest or selfish motive, cooperat ed only grudgingly in the disciplinary process,
l ied in his testimony during the panel hearing, refus ed to acknowledge the wrongful
nature of his conduct, harm ed vulnerable clients, and fail ed to mak e restitution. As
for mitigation, the attorney had no prior discipline and submitted evidence of his good character and reputation. We suspended him from the practice of law for six
months and conditi on ed his reinstatement on his making restitution. See id. at ¶ 46,
49. {¶ 24} In Columbus Bar Assn. v. Halliburton

- Cohen , 106 Ohio St.3d 98,
2005

- Ohio

- 3956, 832 N.E.2d 42, an attorney charged a client a clearly excessive fee and failed to promptly refund unearned fees upon withdrawing from the representation. We found only one aggravating factor : prior discipline for similar
misconduct. As for mitigation, the attorney cooperated in the disciplinary process
and the parties stipulated to the attorney’s oth erwise good character. We suspendedS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

8 her for six months but stayed the suspension on conditions, including that she refund money to her former client

. {¶ 25} And i n Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Sliwinski , 134 Ohio St.3d 368,
2012

- Ohio

- 5640, 982 N.E.2d 69 8 , an at torney committed some of the same client

trust

- account violations as Purola. For example, the attorney used his client trust account to pay personal expenses, fail ed to keep records for his client trust account or to perform monthly reconciliation of the funds in the account, and fail ed to promptly refund an unearned fee. We found only one aggravating factor

— that he
had engaged in a pattern of misconduct

— but several mitigating factors, including
that the lawyer had a clean disciplinary record, had cooperated in the disciplinary process, and had lacked a dishonest or selfish motive. We suspended him for six months but stayed the suspension on conditions, including that he make restitution

. I d. at ¶ 33

. {¶ 26} T he board found that the aggravating factors present here are similar
to those in Summers . The board recognized that Purola’s advanced age, his inactive registration status, and his current living situation are relevant in assessing the risk he pose s to the public

. B ut considering the number of significant aggravating
factors , the board concluded that an actual six

- month suspension was warranted and
consistent with the sanction we imposed in Summers

. {¶ 27} In additio n, the board recommend s that we condition Purola’s reinstatement to the practice of law on his reimbursing the Lawyer s’ Fund for Client
Protection (“LFCP”) in the amount of any award paid to Dykes and Jackson. As the board noted, Dykes and Jackson filed a claim with the LFCP alleging a loss of $12,500 due to Purola’s dishonest conduct

. The LFCP has determined that they suffered a loss of $7,500 and are eligible for reimbursement in that amount. {¶ 28} Having independently reviewed the record and our applicable precedent, we agree that a six

- month suspension , with reinstatement condition ed
on reimbursement to the LFCP , is the appropriate sanction in this case.January Term, 2023

9 Conclusion {¶ 29} Albert Linden Purola will be suspended from the practice of law in
the state of O hio for six months; upon Purola’s registration for active status, his interim default suspension will be converted into a six

- month suspension

. In addition to meeting the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(24), Purola’s reinstatement
shall be conditioned on his providing proof that he has reimbursed the Lawyers’
Fund for Client Protection in the amount award ed to Ronn i e Dykes and Lakeisha
Jackson. Costs are taxed to Purola. Judgment accordingly.
K ENNEDY , C.J., and F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , B RUNNER , and D ETERS , JJ., concur.

_________________ Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Michelle A. Hall and Matthew A. Kanai, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator

. Albert Linden Purola, pro se

.

_________________