Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson, 127 Ohio St. 3d 250

Respondent Stanley Jackson Jr. was admitted to practice in Ohio in 2003 and faced a three-count amended complaint charging ethics violations related to two clients and the disciplinary process.
Counts I–II allege misconduct concerning fee handling, fee divisions, and restitution, while Count III concerns false or inconsistent statements during the disciplinary proceedings.
Count I involves a December 2007 $25,000 flat fee for representing a client charged with carrying a concealed weapon; the client terminated, requested an unrefunded $22,000 portion, and respondent did not refund unearned fees.
Count II concerns a 2004 matter where respondent and nonfirm co-counsel shared fees without client consent or written disclosure, and respondent directed a settlement and misappropriated funds by signing the client’s name on a settlement check and failing to distribute funds or provide an accounting.
The panel found violations of multiple Rules (e.g., DR 2-107(A)(2), 1-102(A)(6), Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h), 7-101(A)(3), 9-102(B)(4), 1.15(d), and 1-102(A)(4)) and accepted facts supporting these misconduct findings.
The board and panel differed on sanction, with the panel recommending two years with six months stayed on conditions and the board urging a two-year suspension with no stay; the Supreme Court imposed a two-year suspension with six months stayed, conditioned on restitution, no further misconduct, and one year of monitored probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessive fee and failure to refund unearned fees (Count I)	Jackson charged a clearly excessive fee and failed to refund unearned fees.	Respondent may contend justification for charges and that restitution was addressed.	Two-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions.
Fee division without disclosure and misappropriation (Count II)	Respondent violated disclosure requirements and engaged in dishonesty and misappropriation of funds.	Respondent disputes the extent of liability or causation of client harm.	Two-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions.
False or inconsistent statements during disciplinary proceedings (Count III)	Respondent made false statements and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process.	Respondent may have offered explanations but did not fully cooperate.	Two-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 84 (2009-Ohio-500) (imposed two-year suspension; misconduct included false representations and evading inquiry)
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Kealy, 125 Ohio St.3d 238 (2010-Ohio-1554) (multiple misconducts during disciplinary investigation; mitigation and aggravation weighed)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Larson, 124 Ohio St.3d 249 (2009-Ohio-6766) (two-year suspension with one year stayed for misleading a client and failing to perform duties)
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Mishler, 118 Ohio St.3d 109 (2008-Ohio-1810) (two-year suspension; forging client endorsement and other serious misappropriations)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (considered aggravation/mitigation factors in similar misconduct)