2016 Ohio 1599
Ohio2016Background
- Jesse Jackson Jr., admitted 2010, was charged with multiple violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules for the Government of the Bar based on misconduct beginning soon after he joined Caparella-Kraemer & Associates in May 2011.
- Misconduct included failing to close prior solo offices and split fees with the firm, resulting in criminal conviction for petty theft and restitution to the firm; inadequate/neglected work in multiple bankruptcy matters; improper handling of IOLTA funds (depositing his deceased wife’s BWC checks into IOLTA rather than estate); trust-account recordkeeping and reconciliation failures; and improper sexual conduct with/solicitation of clients.
- Jackson stipulated to most allegations in an amended consent-to-discipline agreement, admitting numerous rule violations (competence, diligence, fee, trust-account, communication with disciplinary authorities, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to administration of justice among others).
- Aggravating factors: dishonest/selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, failure to pay restitution. Mitigating factors: no prior discipline, eventual cooperation and disclosure during investigation.
- Parties agreed that the appropriate sanction was a two-year suspension with reinstatement conditioned on restitution and two years of monitored probation; the Board recommended adoption of the agreement.
- The Supreme Court adopted the consent-to-discipline agreement and imposed a two-year suspension, restitution payments totaling $15,329.77 (broken down in the opinion), and a two-year monitored probation upon reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson committed professional misconduct warranting discipline | Relator alleged numerous violations across competence, fees, trust-account rules, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to justice | Jackson largely stipulated to violations in a consent-to-discipline agreement and acknowledged wrongdoing | Court found violations of the listed rules and adopted the stipulated findings |
| Appropriate sanction for the misconduct | Two-year suspension with reinstatement conditioned on restitution and monitored probation (per consent agreement) | Jackson agreed to the two-year suspension and conditions as part of the consent agreement | Court adopted the agreed sanction: two-year suspension with restitution condition and two-year monitored probation upon reinstatement |
| Restitution and conditions for reinstatement | Restitution of $15,329.77 divided among the firm, deceased spouse’s estate, and a client; payment required before reinstatement | Jackson agreed to pay restitution as condition for reinstatement | Court ordered restitution: $5,700 to Caparella-Kraemer, $8,629.77 to Leonetta Jackson’s estate, $1,000 to Sharon Allen; restitution a reinstatement condition |
| Whether consent-to-discipline agreement should be adopted | Relator and Board urged adoption as conforming to Gov.Bar R. V(16) and comparable precedent | Jackson and counsel supported adoption and stipulated facts and sanctions | Court concluded the agreement conformed to rules and precedent and adopted it in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Dayton Bar Assn. v. Swift, 33 N.E.3d 1 (2014) (two-year suspension with conditions for pattern of overbilling and multiple offenses)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraemer, 931 N.E.2d 571 (2010) (two-year suspension for misappropriation of fees by not remitting firm share)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Gonzalez, 6 N.E.3d 1149 (2014) (two-year suspension with conditions for trust-account misuse, commingling, and related misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. DeGidio, 987 N.E.2d 681 (2013) (two-year suspension for commingling client and personal funds)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell, 928 N.E.2d 1100 (2010) (indefinite suspension for using client trust account for personal expenses and other serious violations)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Troxell, 950 N.E.2d 555 (2011) (indefinite suspension for neglect and failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Weiss, 977 N.E.2d 636 (2012) (indefinite suspension with conditions for wrongful retention of client funds)