Disciplinary Counsel v. Burchinal
133 Ohio St. 3d 38
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Respondent Christopher J. Burchinal, Ohio attorney since 1999, faced a four-count misconduct complaint filed February 1, 2011.
- Allegations included misappropriation of client funds in three cases, dishonesty, deceit, and conduct adverse to fitness to practice, plus neglect and concealment of a client matter.
- Misappropriations involved using client funds to pay personal mortgage and firm expenses rather than honoring subrogation and hospital bill obligations.
- Respondent disclosed misconduct after being confronted in May 2010 and entered into restitution arrangements with affected clients.
- OLAP treatment and a four-year contract were undertaken, with mental-health treatment characterized as contributing to mitigating circumstances.
- Panel recommended a two-year suspension with 12 months stayed, subject to monitored probation and OLAP completion, which the Court modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misappropriation warrants actual suspension rather than disbarment | Disciplinary Counsel urged substantial discipline | Burchinal argued mitigation could justify lesser sanction | Two-year suspension with 18 months stayed |
| Whether mitigating factors justify a stay of part of the suspension | Mitigating factors not enough to avoid suspension | Mitigating evidence supports staying more of the sanction | Mitigation supports 18-month stayed portion under monitored probation |
| Whether the sanction should be as recommended by the board or enhanced by the Court | Relator supported the broader sanction if warranted | Respondent urged alternative modest stay | Court imposed two-year suspension with final 18 months stayed |
| Whether neglect and concealment evidence aggravates the discipline | Aggravating factors present due to pattern of misconduct | Mitigation offsets some impact | Yes; pattern and dishonesty supported a substantial suspension |
| Role of OLAP and mental-health treatment in sanction | Treatment evidence should not reduce sanction | OLAP and treatment show rehabilitation potential | Conditions required: monitored probation for 18 months and complete OLAP contract |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraemer, 126 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2010) (extensive misconduct with dishonesty supports actual suspension when mitigating factors exist)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Mishler, 118 Ohio St.3d 109 (Ohio 2008) (mitigation and rehabilitation can influence sanction)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Claflin, 107 Ohio St.3d 31 (Ohio 2005) (mitigating evidence can justify lesser sanction)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Poley, 94 Ohio St.3d 425 (Ohio 2002) (trial court discretion for sanction with mitigation)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Miller, 132 Ohio St.3d 63 (Ohio 2012) (extensive dishonesty warrants actual suspension)