Disciplinary Counsel v. Brickley
131 Ohio St. 3d 228
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Brickley, admitted to practice in 1984, was indefinitely suspended in 2002 and has not been reinstated.
- Relator filed a disciplinary complaint on August 16, 2010 alleging theft-related misconduct from February–September 2006.
- While a paralegal for another attorney, Brickley wrote seven checks to himself from a client trust account and deposited them personally.
- The misconduct came to light in December 2008; Brickley pleaded no contest to felony theft, forgery, and receiving stolen property and entered a diversion program.
- Relator alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), (c), and (h) based on these convictions and deceitful conduct; investigation proceeded by default after Brickley failed to respond to inquiries.
- The master commissioner and board recommended permanent disbarment, which this Court imposed, with costs taxed to Brickley.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brickley’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b),(c),(h). | Disciplinary Counsel argues the theft, forgery, and misappropriation reflect dishonesty and fitness. | Brickley did not contest the findings; focuses on procedural aspects. | Yes; violations established. |
| Whether default procedure supported by clear and convincing evidence was proper. | Disciplinary Counsel satisfied Gov.Bar R. V ownership for default. | Brickley did not participate; question on notice adequacy. | Properly supported; default affirmed. |
| Whether permanent disbarment is the appropriate sanction. | Disciplinary record, pattern of misconduct, and failure to cooperate warrant disbarment. | Mitigating restitution efforts shown; support for continued discipline. | Permanent disbarment warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio St.3d 490 (2002-Ohio-2490) (disbarment appropriate for misappropriation of client funds when convicted of theft)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Muhlbach, 104 Ohio St.3d 340 (2004-Ohio-6563) (disbarment presumptive for improper conduct involving client funds)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (aggravating/mitigating factors in sanctions procedures)