[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Simpson, 138 Ohio St.3d 94, 2014-Ohio-54.] 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SIMPSON. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Simpson, 138 Ohio St.3d 94, 2014-Ohio-54.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to promptly deliver funds that client is entitled 

to receive—Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation—Consent to 

discipline—One-year suspension stayed on conditions. 

(No. 2013-0922—Submitted July 9, 2013—Decided January 21, 2014.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-097. 

____________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Jeffrey Glenn Simpson of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0080376, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2006. 

On December 10, 2012, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Simpson with 

professional misconduct following Simpson’s representation of a landlord in an 

eviction matter. After obtaining a judgment in favor of his client and taking 

possession of a rent-payment check issued by the tenant, Simpson then lost or 

misplaced the check, failed to pay his client the rent money, and failed to respond 

to his client’s numerous requests for information about the rent payment. Relator 

also alleged that Simpson failed to cooperate in the subsequent disciplinary 

investigation regarding the matter. 

{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement. 

See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11. 

{¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Simpson stipulates to the 

facts alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that his conduct violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

reasonable requests for information from the client), 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer 

to promptly deliver funds or other property that the client is entitled to receive), 

8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for 

information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation), and 8.4(h) 

(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 

lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to 

cooperate with a disciplinary investigation). Relator requests the dismissal of the 

alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 

conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). 

{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that mitigating factors include the absence of 

a prior disciplinary record, the payment of full restitution to the client, and 

Simpson’s evidence of good character and reputation. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 

10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (e). As an aggravating factor, the parties note that Simpson 

engaged in multiple offenses by failing to respond to his client’s requests for 

information about the recovered rent payment, failing to deliver the rent payment 

to the client, and failing to promptly respond to relator’s requests for information 

during the investigation. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d). Based upon these 

factors, the parties stipulate that the appropriate sanction for Simpson’s 

misconduct is a one-year suspension from the practice of law, with the entire 

suspension stayed upon the conditions that Simpson engage in no further 

misconduct and comply with all treatment recommendations from the Ohio 

Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), Dr. Daniel J. Rapport, and/or Dr. John 

Wryobeck. 

{¶ 5} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline 

agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and recommend that we adopt the 

agreement in its entirety. 

{¶ 6} We agree that Simpson violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(d), 

8.1(b), and 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and, as stated in the parties’ 
January Term, 2014 

3

agreement, that this conduct warrants a one-year suspension, with the entire 

suspension stayed on conditions. Therefore, we adopt the parties’ consent-todiscipline agreement, and we dismiss the charged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 

8.4(d). 

{¶ 7} Accordingly, Jeffrey Glenn Simpson is hereby suspended from the 

practice of law for a period of one year, with the entire suspension stayed upon 

the conditions that Simpson (1) comply with the treatment recommendations of 

OLAP, Dr. Rapport, and/or Dr. Wryobeck and (2) commit no further misconduct. 

If Simpson fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted, 

and Simpson will serve the entire one-year suspension. Costs are taxed to 

Simpson. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

____________________ 

Karen H. Osmond, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

Justin Withrow and Michael C. Hennenberg, for respondent. 

________________________