Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St. 3d 35

Bricker is an Ohio attorney admitted in 1961 who had a prior 2007 suspension for failing to register and was reinstated four days later.
Since 1995 Bricker has been a solo practitioner; he maintained an IOLTA client trust account from 2010 onward and an operating account for his practice.
From Aug 2010 to Aug 2011 Bricker issued payments from his IOLTA for personal and business expenses and did not maintain client-ledger reconciliations.
Relator charged Bricker with violating 1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2), and 1.15(a)(5) for IOLTA mismanagement, and with failing to provide closing statements in contingent-fee matters (1.5(c)(2)).
Bricker disputed certain conclusions, the panel found some violations, the board adopted, and disciplinary counsel sought further sanctions; Bricker’s conduct raised questions about a possible 8.4(h) violation.
The Court ultimately publicly reprimanded Bricker, noting mitigating factors and lack of client harm, while overruling relator’s objections and affirming the board’s findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bricker violated 1.15 by misusing IOLTA funds	Disciplinary Counsel argues misappropriation via commingling and personal use.	Bricker contends no misappropriation; he used earned fees and intended to limit IOLTA use.	Bricker violated 1.15(a), (a)(2), and (a)(5).
Whether Bricker violated 1.5(c)(2) by not providing closing statements	Relator asserts failure to sign closing statements violated 1.5(c)(2).	Bricker disputed applicability to contingent-fee collection matters.	Bricker's failure to have closing statements signed violated 1.5(c)(2).
Whether 8.4(h) was proven and should affect sanction	Relator argued Bricker’s conduct adversely reflected on fitness under 8.4(h).	Bricker argues 8.4(h) is a catchall used only for egregious, uncontracted misconduct.	8.4(h) dismissal upheld; no separate 8.4(h) violation found.
Appropriate sanction for Bricker	Disciplinary Counsel seeks suspension; points to similar cases with stricter penalties.	Bricker seeks public reprimand, citing mitigating factors and lack of client harm.	Public reprimand imposed; costs taxed to Bricker.
Disposition of relator's objections and procedural issues	Relator challenges dismissal procedure under Gov.Bar R. V.	Bricker argues against overbroad 8.4(h) application and cites mitigating factors.	Relator’s objections overruled; board’s findings adopted.

Seibel v. Cincinnati Bar Assn., 132 Ohio St.3d 411 (2012-Ohio-3234) (public reprimand where conduct involved mismanagement but not full misappropriation)
Piszczek v. Ohio Bar, 115 Ohio St.3d 228 (2007-Ohio-4946) (public reprimand with corrective measures for trust-account mismanagement)
Murraine v. Ohio Bar, 130 Ohio St.3d 397 (2011-Ohio-5795) (misconduct involving trust-account deposits; reprimand with remedial steps)