[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Burchinal, 133 Ohio St.3d 38, 2012-Ohio-3882.] 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BURCHINAL. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Burchinal, 

133 Ohio St.3d 38, 2012-Ohio-3882.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Misappropriation of client funds but substantial 

mitigation—Partially stayed license suspension. 

(No. 2011-1426—Submitted November 2, 2011—Decided 

August 29, 2012.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-020. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Christopher James Burchinal of Delaware, Ohio, 

Attorney Registration No. 0071503, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 

1999. On February 1, 2011, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a four-count 

complaint charging Burchinal with misappropriating funds on three occasions in 

violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit advance payments 

of fees and expenses in a trust account for withdrawal as fees are earned and 

expenses incurred), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 

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

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

Additionally, the complaint charged a failure to file a civil complaint on behalf of 

clients within the statute of limitations and then deceiving his clients into 

believing he was settling the case, thereby violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a 

lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 

1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status 

of the matter), and 8.4(h). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

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

Discipline held a hearing on June 19, 2011, and after considering the testimony 

and exhibits and the parties’ stipulations, the panel found that Burchinal had 

committed the charged misconduct. After its review of aggravating and 

mitigating circumstances and the parties’ proposed sanctions, the panel 

recommended a two-year license suspension with 12 months stayed on the 

following conditions: that respondent serve the stayed suspension under 

monitored probation, that he cooperate with the attorney assigned by relator as the 

monitor for his reentry to practice, and that he complete his four-year contract 

with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”). The board adopted the 

panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. 

{¶ 3} Burchinal filed objections to the board’s recommendation, seeking 

a two-year suspension with 18 months stayed on conditions, including that 

Burchinal work with an attorney monitor. Relator responded by reiterating his 

support for the sanction that he had recommended: an 18-month license 

suspension with 12 months stayed on conditions. At oral argument, relator 

expressed support for respondent’s suggested sanction of a two-year suspension 

with 18 months stayed on conditions. 

{¶ 4} We overrule the board’s recommendation and instead order that 

Burchinal be suspended from the practice of law for two years, with the final 18 

months stayed on the following conditions: that Burchinal serve 18 months of 

monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9) during the stay, that he 

cooperate with the attorney assigned by relator as the monitor for his reentry to 

practice, and that he complete his four-year OLAP contract. 

Misconduct 

1. Background 

{¶ 5} After passing the bar, Burchinal worked for a personal-injury law 

firm and then worked for the city of Reynoldsburg and the Columbus city 
January Term, 2012 

3 

attorney’s office. Next, Burchinal worked at an insurance-defense firm. 

Dissatisfied at doing depositions but not trials, Burchinal pursued solo practice. 

He then joined the law firm that became Firestone, Brehm, Hanson, Wolf & 

Burchinal, L.L.P., in Delaware, where he worked from December 2004 to July 

2010. 

{¶ 6} At first serving at the firm as a partner in name only, with some 

input but no vote on finances or other partnership matters, Burchinal was elevated 

to full partner three months after joining the firm. As a full partner, Burchinal had 

to assume responsibility for $3,800 of monthly firm expenses. At the same time, 

his monthly home-mortgage payment was approximately $2,500, and child-care 

expenses approximated $4,000 a month. Over time, the burden of more than 

$10,300 a month in expenses was financially draining, and in some months, 

Burchinal did not earn enough to cover his bills. 

2. Misappropriation of funds 

{¶ 7} Burchinal’s firm partners asked him to assist in personal-injury 

cases because they had little experience with such cases. Burchinal 

misappropriated funds in three cases. In 2007, he was to pay a subrogated 

medical expense of $6,141 as part of effectuating the settlement for his client, 

Molly Davis. Instead of paying the claim, Burchinal misappropriated this sum 

and paid his mortgage and his share of firm expenses with it. 

{¶ 8} In the Getena Hartman case in 2008, $303.25 was owed to 

Riverside Methodist Hospital. Instead of disbursing the money to Riverside, 

Burchinal misappropriated it to pay his mortgage and other personal expenses. 

{¶ 9} In 2009, in the Shannon Scott matter, Burchinal was to pay a 

$7,435.02 subrogated expense, and the insurance company issued a separate 

check for it. Instead of paying that claim, Burchinal misappropriated the money 

by having the client endorse the check. He then deposited it and used the money 

for personal expenses. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

{¶ 10} With respect to the three counts of misappropriating funds, 

Burchinal stipulated violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h). 

3. Neglect of a client matter and concealment 

{¶ 11} In the matter of James and Penny Robinson, Burchinal missed the 

2008 statute-of-limitations deadline for their personal-injury lawsuit. Instead of 

informing his clients, for two years Burchinal told the clients that he was still 

negotiating with the insurance company. With respect to this count, Burchinal 

stipulated violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), and 8.4(h). 

4. Discovery, self-reporting, and restitution 

{¶ 12} In May 2010, one of his law partners confronted Burchinal about 

the unpaid Riverside Hospital bill. He admitted using the money to pay personal 

expenses and also revealed that he had misappropriated funds intended to pay the 

subrogation claims for Davis and Scott. Burchinal then reported his misconduct 

to relator. 

{¶ 13} Right after being confronted, Burchinal paid the Riverside Hospital 

bill and the subrogation claims relating to the Davis and Scott matters. He also 

entered into a settlement with the Robinsons and signed a promissory note to pay 

them $17,000 as the value of their case and defray their $1,200 medical bill. 

Burchinal has fulfilled his obligations to the Robinsons. 

5. OLAP contract and psychological treatment 

{¶ 14} Also in May 2010, Burchinal sought assistance from OLAP and 

signed a four-year OLAP contract. OLAP clinical associate Megan Snyder 

testified that she conducted an alcohol, drug, and mental-health assessment on 

Burchinal and diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed 

mood resulting from his financial stress. The OLAP contract requires Burchinal 

to pursue appropriate treatment by his physician and mental-health professionals, 

and Snyder has asked him to contact OLAP three times a week for support. 

Snyder testified that Burchinal has been open, cooperative, and compliant. 
January Term, 2012 

5 

{¶ 15} In June 2010, Burchinal began mental-health counseling with 

Judith Fisher, a licensed independent social worker. Fisher testified that 

Burchinal had initially exhibited several symptoms of depression relating to 

financial stress exacerbated by his strong identity as breadwinner, but she testified 

that a year later, he had made progress by maintaining healthy habits, by reaching 

out to friends and family, and by participating in group therapy sessions. She 

offered her professional opinion that Burchinal’s condition had impaired his 

rationality and judgment and had contributed to his misconduct. Fisher stated that 

Burchinal had “come out from under the symptoms that * * * had taken over,” 

and she opined that he “could return to the practice of law in a competent, ethical, 

and professional manner.” 

Disposition 

1. Aggravating and mitigating factors 

{¶ 16} After finding that Burchinal had violated the Rules of Professional 

Conduct as stipulated, the panel made findings regarding aggravating and 

mitigating factors. As aggravating factors, the panel identified the presence of a 

selfish or dishonest motive as well as multiple offenses constituting a pattern of 

misconduct. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), and (d). The panel noted as 

mitigating factors the absence of a prior disciplinary record, full disclosure and a 

cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and diagnosis by a 

qualified professional that mental illness contributed to his misconduct, but that 

he will be able to return to the competent and ethical practice of law. See BCGD 

Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), (e), and (g). 

2. Sanction 

{¶ 17} The presumptive sanction for misappropriation of client funds is 

disbarment. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio St.3d 490, 2002-Ohio-2490, 

769 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 15. The presence of sufficient mitigating factors justifies our 

giving weight to a board recommendation of a lesser sanction. Id.; Dayton Bar 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

Assn. v. Gerren, 103 Ohio St.3d 21, 2004-Ohio-4110, 812 N.E.2d 1280, ¶ 14. But 

case law supports an actual suspension from the practice of law when extensive 

misconduct involves dishonesty that adversely reflects on the attorney’s fitness to 

practice law. Toledo Bar Assn. v. Miller, 132 Ohio St.3d 63, 2012-Ohio-1880, 

969 N.E.2d 239, ¶ 13. 

{¶ 18} The parties agree that the facts support a two-year license 

suspension with 18 months of the suspension stayed. This disposition accords 

with our cases in two respects. 

{¶ 19} First, multiple acts of dishonesty require an actual suspension from 

the practice of law. Miller, ¶ 13. Second, Burchinal offered mitigating evidence, 

such as the absence of a disciplinary record, full cooperation with the disciplinary 

process, letters attesting to his diligence and good character, and a documented 

mental impairment that is being treated with good prognosis. See Disciplinary 

Counsel v. Claflin, 107 Ohio St.3d 31, 2005-Ohio-5827, 836 N.E.2d 564, ¶ 12, 

15; Disciplinary Counsel v. Poley, 94 Ohio St.3d 425, 427, 763 N.E.2d 1163 

(2002); Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Mishler, 118 Ohio St.3d 109, 2008-Ohio-1810, 

886 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 46; Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraemer, 126 Ohio St.3d 163, 

2010-Ohio-3300, 931 N.E.2d 571, ¶ 8, 15. 

{¶ 20} We therefore order that Burchinal be suspended from the practice 

of law for two years, with the final 18 months of the suspension stayed on the 

following conditions: that Burchinal commit no further misconduct, that he serve 

18 months of monitored probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9) during the stayed 

portion of the suspension, that he cooperate with the monitoring attorney assigned 

by relator, and that he complete his four-year OLAP contract. If Burchinal 

violates these conditions, the stay will be lifted, and he will serve the full two-year 

suspension. 

{¶ 21} Costs are taxed to respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 
January Term, 2012 

7 

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

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

__________________ 

 Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Heather Coglianese, 

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

 Bricker & Eckler L.L.P., and Alvin E. Mathews Jr., for respondent. 

______________________