Dayton Bar Assn. v. Swift (Slip Opinion), 33 N.E.3d 1

Respondent Ben Musa Swift, admitted in 1995, was investigated after a newspaper article showing he was the highest-paid court-appointed attorney in Ohio.
Audit of his reimbursement forms for Montgomery, Warren, Clark, and Greene Counties (2007–2009) showed extraordinarily high billings, including repeated entries of 14–30 hours per day and annual totals implying work every day of the year.
Swift failed to keep contemporaneous time records, routinely billed in half-hour increments contrary to Ohio Public Defender guidelines, and provided no documentation to support hundreds of billed hours.
The Dayton Bar Association charged Swift with multiple violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct for knowingly making false statements and engaging in dishonest conduct in submitting inflated fee forms to courts and the Ohio Public Defender system.
The hearing panel and the Board found multiple rule violations (including Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1), 4.1(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d)) and, although the board initially dismissed 8.4(h), the Supreme Court found that Swift’s conduct also violated 8.4(h); the court dismissed an alleged 8.4(b) violation.
The parties had stipulated to restitution of $50,000 and proposed sanctions; the Court imposed a two-year suspension with the second year stayed conditioned on one year of monitored probation, no further misconduct, and full restitution allocated among the state and counties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Swift knowingly make false statements to tribunals by submitting inflated billing forms?	Yes; billing records and audits show fabricated/implausible daily and annual hours.	Implicitly disputed severity but conceded failures in recordkeeping; no detailed contrary proof.	Yes; violation of Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1).
Did Swift make false statements of material fact to third parties and engage in dishonest conduct?	Yes; submitted reimbursement forms with false time entries to courts and the Ohio Public Defender.	Argued cooperation and lack of prior discipline as mitigating factors.	Yes; violations of Prof.Cond.R. 4.1(a) and 8.4(c).
Did the misconduct amount to conduct prejudicial to administration of justice or reflecting adversely on fitness to practice?	Yes; pervasive overbilling, lack of records, and pattern of misconduct undermined public trust.	Argued character evidence and cooperation mitigated impact.	Yes; violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and 8.4(h). 8.4(b) dismissed.
Appropriate sanction for the misconduct?	Suspension comparable to Stahlbush with restitution and monitored probation; restitution $50,000.	Agreed to up to two-year suspension and restitution; proposed in-kind repayment via appointed services (parties stipulated).	Two-year suspension with second year stayed on conditions: one-year monitored probation, no further misconduct, and full restitution of $50,000 in cash before reinstatement (in-kind repayment rejected).

Toledo Bar Assn. v. Stahlbush, 933 N.E.2d 1091 (Ohio 2010) (court imposed suspension for extreme overbilling of court-appointed work and considered comparable sanctions)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 997 N.E.2d 500 (Ohio 2013) (requires clear-and-convincing proof for finding that conduct adversely reflects on lawyer’s fitness to practice law)