Disciplinary Counsel v. Doellman
127 Ohio St. 3d 411
| Ohio | 2010Background
- Respondent Doellman, a long-practicing Ohio attorney, was charged with mismanaging client funds and commingling funds.
- He initially held First Financial Bank collection proceeds in a non-IOLTA account rather than converting to an IOLTA account when required.
- From 1981 to 2001 he deposited bank collections into the non-IOLTA account and retained a one-third fee in that same account.
- After First Financial terminated him, Doellman deposited 38 debtor checks totaling $2,764.46 into a non-IOLTA account and used funds personally.
- He failed to timely return files, provide an accounting, or fully cooperate in litigation with First Financial.
- The trial court sanctions against him were later recognized in bankruptcy and he agreed to restitution and supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Doellman violate trust-fund rules in Counts I/III? | Relator | Doellman | Yes for Counts I and III |
| Did Doellman’s conduct after termination amount to wrongdoing under DR 1-102(A)(5) and related rules? | Relator | Doellman | Yes for Count II overall (A(5), A(6), 9-102(A), 9-102(B)(1)(3)(4)) |
| Was the post-termination conduct deceitful or dishonest under DR 1-102(A)(4)? | Relator | Doellman | No; dismissed |
| Should the court consider a pattern of misconduct or selfish motive as aggravation? | Relator | Doellman | Pattern noted for Count II; selfish motive found; still stayed sanction imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Chasser, 124 Ohio St.3d 578 (2010-Ohio-956) (no 1-102(A)(5) finding despite trust-account misuses)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. McCray, 109 Ohio St.3d 43 (2006-Ohio-1828) (overdrafts and improper withdrawal from trust account; not prejudicial enough)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330 (2008-Ohio-3836) (cases where DR 1-102(A)(5) proven by commingling and overdrafts)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 381 (2006-Ohio-1194) (discipline for misuse of IOLTA; deceit not always required)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Nance, 119 Ohio St.3d 55 (2008-Ohio-3333) (pattern of misconduct considerations in trust-account cases)