[Cite as Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Saunders, 132 Ohio St.3d 29, 2012-Ohio-1651.]

GREENE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SAUNDERS. 

[Cite as Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Saunders, 

132 Ohio St.3d 29, 2012-Ohio-1651.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple violations of Code of Professional 

Responsibility, including misappropriation of client funds—Permanent 

disbarment. 

(No. 2011-1460—Submitted October 18, 2011—Decided April 17, 2012.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-091. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Craig William Saunders, whose last known address is 

in Dayton, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0071865, was admitted to the practice 

of law in Ohio in 2000. We suspended his license on November 3, 2009, for his 

failure to register as an attorney for the 2009-2011 biennium. In re Attorney 

Registration Suspension of Saunders, 123 Ohio St.3d 1475, 2009-Ohio-5786, 915 

N.E.2d 1256. 

{¶ 2} On December 7, 2009, relator, Greene County Bar Association, 

filed a complaint charging respondent with professional misconduct arising from 

his neglect of several client matters, conversion of client funds, and dishonesty, 

fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, as well as his failure to respond to the 

ensuing disciplinary investigations. When attempts to serve the complaint on 

respondent by certified mail at multiple addresses failed, relator served it on the 

clerk of this court in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). 

{¶ 3} During the pendency of this action, we have suspended Saunders’s 

license to practice for an interim period pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4) based 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

on information that he had been convicted of a felony. In re Saunders, 124 Ohio 

St.3d 1435, 2010-Ohio-187, 920 N.E.2d 367. And we have indefinitely 

suspended Saunders for neglect, failure to reasonably communicate, and failure to 

respond to relator’s inquiries about several client grievances in an unrelated case. 

Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Saunders, 127 Ohio St.3d 241, 2010-Ohio-5708, 938 

N.E.2d 352. 

{¶ 4} Because respondent has failed to file an answer to relator’s 

complaint in this action, relator moved for a default judgment on April 12, 2010. 

A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 

and Discipline found that relator’s evidence, consisting of affidavits from the 

grievants and copies of documents, was sworn or certified as required by Gov.Bar 

R. V(6)(F)(1)(b). Based upon that evidence, the master commissioner granted 

relator’s motion for default, made findings of fact and misconduct, and 

recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred from the practice of law. 

The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact and misconduct, 

except that the board dismissed an alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3. 

Nonetheless, the board adopted the master commissioner’s recommended 

sanction. Except as noted below, we adopt the board’s findings of fact and 

misconduct, and we disbar Saunders from the practice of law in Ohio. 

Misconduct

{¶ 5} In its complaint, relator alleges that Saunders has committed 27 

violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of 

Professional Conduct in his representation of four clients, including the city of 

Xenia, where he served as an assistant prosecutor. 

Count One 

{¶ 6} In the first count, the master commissioner and board found that 

respondent converted more than $40,000 that his client, Sue K. Johnston, had 

entrusted to him in 2005 to pay taxes due on her mother’s estate. Despite 
January Term, 2012 

3

Saunders’s assurances that the taxes had been paid, the Ohio Department of 

Taxation informed Johnston in 2008 that no tax return had been filed and that 

$45,806.75 in taxes, interest, and penalties remained unpaid. Johnston tried 

without success to discuss the matter with Saunders. She retained new counsel 

and paid the taxes herself. 

{¶ 7} Finding that Saunders’s conduct occurred before February 1, 2007, 

the effective date of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, the master 

commissioner and board concluded that the Code of Professional Responsibility 

applied. Accordingly, they recommend that a number of alleged violations of the 

Rules of Professional Conduct be dismissed: they found that Saunders violated 

only DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving 

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting neglect 

of an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally 

failing to seek the lawful objectives of his client), and 9-102(E)(1) (requiring a 

lawyer to maintain funds of clients or other third parties in a separate interestbearing account). 

{¶ 8} We agree that relator has clearly and convincingly proven the 

alleged violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), and 9-102(E)(1). 

And in accordance with the board’s recommendation, we hereby dismiss the 

alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable 

diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(1) through (4) (requiring a lawyer to 

reasonably communicate with the lawyer’s client and comply with the client’s 

reasonable request for information), 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold property 

of clients in an interest-bearing client trust account, separate from the lawyer’s 

own property), 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to 

a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation), 

8.4(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from violating or attempting to violate the Ohio Rules 

of Professional Conduct), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

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

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

justice), and (h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely 

reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 

Count Two 

{¶ 9} Saunders was hired to file a lawsuit on behalf of Mildred Barreno. 

Barreno stated that she attempted to contact respondent on several occasions, that 

he never returned her phone calls, and that he later sent her a check for $1,340 

without explanation.1

 

{¶ 10} Based upon the foregoing, the master commissioner and board 

found that Saunders violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(1). We 

agree that respondent’s failure to pursue the action to a conclusion that had the 

consent of his client is an intentional failure to seek the lawful objectives of his 

client and that his failure to return her phone calls or explain the disposition of her 

case and to keep her informed constitutes both neglect and deceit. Therefore, we 

find that Saunders’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 6-101(A)(3), and 7-

101(A)(1). 

Count Three 

{¶ 11} In a third case, the Greene County Probate Court discovered that a 

fiduciary’s account filed on March 10, 2005, showed that money had been 

deposited with Saunders for the payment of estate taxes. Four years later, the 

court directed respondent to finalize the account, but he did not do so. 

{¶ 12} Relator alleged that respondent converted approximately $2,500 

from this estate. Because the amount respondent was fined when he was 

convicted of two counts of theft nearly matched the sum of the money allegedly 

converted by Saunders in this estate and the money converted in count one, the 

 

1. The sworn and certified exhibits do not establish either that respondent filed a complaint or, if 

the complaint was filed, the reason that it was dismissed. 
January Term, 2012 

5

master commissioner and the board concluded that Saunders’s theft convictions 

related to the conduct alleged in this count and in count one of relator’s 

complaint. Although it appears likely that respondent’s convictions are related to 

this conduct, because the judgment of conviction does not identify the underlying 

facts and there is not a certified copy of the indictment against respondent in the 

record or an affidavit from a person with personal knowledge of the case, there is 

not sufficient evidence to infer that the convictions and the misconduct are 

related. The remaining sworn or certified exhibits presented to the master 

commissioner do not show that respondent converted funds from this estate. 

Therefore, we cannot adopt the board’s finding that respondent violated DR 1-

102(A)(4). 

{¶ 13} Based on the finding that respondent failed to finalize the account 

as ordered by the probate judge, the master commissioner and board found, and 

we agree, that Saunders violated DR 6-101(A)(3). 

Count Four 

{¶ 14} With respect to the fourth and final count, the master 

commissioner found that in 2009 and while serving as an assistant prosecutor for 

the city of Xenia, Saunders failed to file a brief in opposition to a criminal 

defendant’s appeal and lied to a government official about this failure. Based 

upon this conduct and Saunders’s failure to respond to the ensuing disciplinary 

investigation, the master commissioner found that Saunders had violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 8.1(b), 8.4(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h). 

{¶ 15} The board adopted these findings of fact but dismissed the alleged 

violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 without explanation. We have previously rejected 

summary, conclusory assessments of misconduct that were based solely on 

conversations with grievants and that were not based upon the affiant’s personal 

knowledge as insufficient to constitute the sworn or certified documentary prima 

facie evidence required to support a motion for default in attorney disciplinary 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

matters. See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F)(1)(b); Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 104 Ohio St. 

3d 448, 2004-Ohio-6560, 820 N.E.2d 318, ¶ 6-8, citing Northwestern Bar Assn. 

v. Lauber, 104 Ohio St.3d 121, 2004-Ohio-6237, 818 N.E.2d 687. And many of 

the averments set forth in the affidavit relator has submitted in support of this 

count are hearsay. Likewise, we find that the January 16, 2009 decision of the 

Second District Court of Appeals referring to the state’s failure to file a brief does 

not identify Saunders as counsel of record for the plaintiff-appellee and therefore 

cannot establish that he was the attorney responsible for the state’s failure to file 

an appellate brief. We also point out that the copy of the appellate court’s opinion 

presented to the master commissioner was not a certified copy. 

{¶ 16} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct with respect 

to this count with one exception. Because there is no evidence to show that it was 

Saunders’s responsibility to file the appellate brief in this client matter or that he 

knew that the brief had not been filed, we cannot find that he engaged in 

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation when he advised a government 

official that the brief had been filed. Therefore, we adopt the board’s 

recommendation to dismiss the alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and also 

dismiss the alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c). 

Sanction 

{¶ 17} In recommending a sanction, the board considered the aggravating 

and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10. See Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. 

Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. 

Aggravating factors found by the board include Saunders’s prior disciplinary 

record, dishonest or selfish motive, pattern of misconduct involving multiple 

offenses, lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process, and vulnerability of and 

resulting harm to the victims of the misconduct. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 

10(B)(1)(a) through (e), (h). Saunders has not made restitution to Johnston. See
January Term, 2012 

7

BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(i). The board found that no mitigating factors were 

present. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2). 

{¶ 18} The master commissioner and board recommend that Saunders be 

permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. In support of this 

recommendation, they cite the seriousness and wide-ranging nature of Saunders’s 

misconduct, which included the misappropriation of more than $40,000 of client 

funds, and the presence of significant aggravating factors, which included the 

indefinite suspension imposed by this court in November 2010 for his neglect of 

client matters, conversion of client funds, dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and 

misrepresentation, and his failure to respond to the ensuing disciplinary 

investigations. 

{¶ 19} Disbarment is the presumptive sanction for the misappropriation of 

client funds. Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kafantaris, 121 Ohio St.3d 387, 2009-

Ohio-1389, 904 N.E.2d 875, ¶ 14, citing Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio 

St.3d 490, 2002-Ohio-2490, 769 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 15. In light of respondent’s 

pattern of misconduct, including the misappropriation of more than $40,000 in 

client funds, his complete disregard for the disciplinary process, and the indefinite 

suspension we imposed in November 2010 for unrelated misconduct, we agree 

that permanent disbarment is warranted. 

{¶ 20} Accordingly, Craig William Saunders is permanently disbarred 

from the practice of law in the state of Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

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

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

David Miles, for relator. 

______________________