Columbus Bar Assn. v. Boggs
951 N.E.2d 65
Ohio2011Background
- Columbus Bar Association charged Kenneth Boggs, an Ohio-licensed attorney since 1980, in a five-count disciplinary action for multiple Rules violations.
- Boggs has a prior discipline history, including a 1988 public reprimand and a 2004 interim suspension for trust-account mismanagement.
- Counts involve misappropriation and commingling of client funds, failure to inform clients about lack of professional-liability insurance, and inadequate client communication and accounting.
- Specifically, in the Miller matter Boggs deposited client funds into his business account, failed to maintain insurance, and later refunded part of the retainer by transferring funds to a trust account.
- In the Goheen matter Boggs deposited fees into his business account, failed to complete required bankruptcy counseling, and did not advise in writing about lack of insurance.
- The Dotters and Peacock matters alleged excessive fees, lack of accounting, failure to provide competent representation, and failure to maintain insurance; the panel found several violations and credibility in Dotters’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boggs violated 1.4(c) and 1.15(a) and (c). | Boggs failed to inform clients about lack of insurance and to deposit fees into a trust account. | Boggs disputed some findings but did not present a defense contesting the violations. | Yes; violations established. |
| Whether Boggs violated 1.15(a) and (c) in Goheen and Dotters matters. | Boggs commingled funds and failed to provide proper accounting. | Arguments regarding adequacy of accounting were unresolved in parts but some violations were admitted. | Yes; violations proven for Goheen and Dotters. |
| Whether Boggs violated 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a)(3) and (c), 1.5(a), and 8.4(h) in the Dotters and Peacock matters. | Boggs provided incompetent representation, lacked diligence, failed to inform, charged excessive fees, and engaged in conduct reflecting poorly on the profession. | Boggs contends lack of solid evidence for some counts, but the board found support. | Yes; violations established. |
| What discipline is appropriate given Boggs’s conduct and aggravating factors. | Indefinite suspension is warranted due to pattern of misconduct and prior discipline. | Two-year suspension with some stayed time should be sufficient given cooperation. | Indefinite suspension with conditions on reinstatement. |
| Should restitution be ordered and any CLE requirements imposed as a condition of reinstatement. | Restitution required to compensate clients; ongoing CLE in law-office management needed. | Respondent should comply with standard CLE and restitution plans as condition of future license. | Yes; ordered restitution and 12 hours additional CLE in law-office management as a reinstatement condition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 381 (2006-Ohio-1194) (indefinite suspension for extensive trust-account misuse and lack of cooperation)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Kaplan, 124 Ohio St.3d 278 (2010-Ohio-167) (indefinite suspension for neglect and poor disciplinary conduct)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Thompson, 69 Ohio St.2d 667 (1982-Ohio-3d) (emphasized seriousness of mismanagement of client funds)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Heiland, 116 Ohio St.3d 521 (2008-Ohio-91) (panel credibility deferential review; failures to cooperate)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Statzer, 101 Ohio St.3d 14 (2003-Ohio-6649) (credibility and evidence standard in disciplinary review)