Disciplinary Counsel v. Fletcher, 135 Ohio St. 3d 404

Fletcher was suspended in Sept 2010 for misconduct involving the client trust account and financial assistance to a client, with a stay conditioned on no further misconduct and one year of monitored probation.
He did not file the required affidavit of compliance and never sought reinstatement; suspension remained in effect as of Dec 16, 2010.
Relator charged Fletcher in Aug 2011 with continuing to practice in two matters and starting a fourth during suspension; an April 2012 amendment alleged a fifth matter began during suspension.
Panel and board found Fletcher practiced while suspended, identified himself as an attorney, counseled clients, appeared in court, and filed documents from late 2010 through Feb 2012.
The board recommended permanent disbarment; the Supreme Court adopted the findings and sustained the misconduct and sanctions, permanently disbarring Fletcher and taxing costs to him.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Fletcher violate professional conduct by practicing during suspension?	Fletcher continued to practice while suspended and disclosed status to clients and courts.	Fletcher argues no timely reinstatement occurred; relies on lack of active practice after suspension date.	Yes; continued practice violated ethics rules.
Did Fletcher’s communications and conduct reflect dishonesty or prejudicial administration of justice?	Fletcher lied to a client about hearing cancellation and ceased pursuing her case after suspension.	Fletcher disputes liability for all alleged misrepresentations or prejudicial conduct.	Yes; violations of 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 1.3 were established.
Should permanent disbarment be imposed given the record, factors, and prior discipline?	Disbarment is the presumptive sanction for such misconduct, given pattern and multiple offenses.	Mitigating factors (restitution, cooperation) lessen but do not negate the sanction.	Permanent disbarment affirmed; aggravating factors outweigh mitigation.

Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (preserves use of factors in sanction decisions; weighs relevant aggravating/mitigating factors)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (analyzes aggravating/mitigating factors for sanctions)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Sabroff, 123 Ohio St.3d 182 (2009-Ohio-4205) (presumptive disbarment for continuing to practice under suspension)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Frazier, 110 Ohio St.3d 288 (2006-Ohio-4481) (presumptive disbarment sanction for ongoing misconduct under suspension)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Allison, 98 Ohio St.3d 322 (2003-Ohio-776) (emphasizes factors in sanction decisions and cooperation)