Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Britt, 977 N.E.2d 620

Britt admitted to practice in Ohio (1999) and Kentucky (2007); Kentucky license later in good standing after temporary suspension.
Relator Cincinnati Bar Association charged Britt in June 2010 with multiple violations arising from handling of bankruptcy matters and misappropriation of client funds.
Stipulated failures include neglecting client matters, poor communication, failure to segregate client funds, and conduct involving dishonesty and misrepresentation harming administration of justice.
Board panel adopted stipulations, conducted a hearing, and recommended indefinite suspension with restitution.
Relator objected, seeking permanent disbarment; Britt sought only a two-year suspension.
Ohio Supreme Court imposed indefinite suspension, restitution, and additional requirements (12 CLE hours in law-office/trust-account management; one year of monitored probation upon reinstatement).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether indefinite suspension with restitution is proper sanction	Relator argues disbarment is appropriate due to misappropriation	Britt argues for lesser sanction	Indefinite suspension with restitution upheld
Whether the misconduct warrants disbarment or a lesser sanction	Misappropriation and trust-account violations justify disbarment	Mitigating factors justify indefinite suspension, not disbarment	Indefinite suspension and restitution warranted; no permanent disbarment
Role of mitigating factors in sanctioning	Mitigating factors do not excuse misconduct	Depression and lack of prior discipline mitigate	Mitigating factors present; justify tempered sanction (indefinite suspension) with supervision and CLE requirements
Liability for supervising non-attorney staff and unauthorized practice	Failure to supervise Cooper contributed to misconduct	Inexperience; not malicious	Aiding unauthorized practice established; Board finding adopted; sanction reflects supervision failings

Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (presumptive disbarment for misappropriation, tempered by mitigating factors)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (aggravating/mitigating factors in disciplinary decisions)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Garrity, 98 Ohio St.3d 317 (2003-Ohio-740) (indefinitely suspended; mitigating factors considered)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Squire, 130 Ohio St.3d 368 (2011-Ohio-5578) (extensive misconduct with multiple clients; weighing aggravating factors)
Akron Bar Assn. v. Smithern, 125 Ohio St.3d 72 (2010-Ohio-652) (mitigating factors in long-practice disciplinary cases)
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Harris, 96 Ohio St.3d 138 (2002-Ohio-2988) (mitigation considerations in disciplinary outcomes)
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Gerren, 103 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004-Ohio-4110) (presumptive discipline and mitigating evidence)
Disciplinary Counsel v. France, 97 Ohio St.3d 240 (2002-Ohio-5945) (presumptive sanctions framework for professional misconduct)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 101 Ohio St.3d 27 (2003-Ohio-6623) (discretion in imposing lesser sanctions for long-standing practitioners)