Disciplinary Counsel v. Murraine, 130 Ohio St. 3d 397

Murraine is an Ohio-licensed attorney whose 2009 CLE suspension remains in effect and whose Ohio registration is inactive.
Relator charged Murraine with misconduct for using his client trust account as a personal bank account beginning December 2009 during bankruptcy proceedings.
From December 2009 to May 2010, Murraine deposited payroll into the trust account and wrote personal/business checks against it.
Although funds were commingled, there is no evidence of misapplication of client funds to defeat creditors or to harm clients.
The parties stipulated violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) and (b) and 8.4(h); Murraine reported all income and debts on his bankruptcy petition.
The parties proposed a one-year stayed suspension, conditioned on no further misconduct and Murraine’s relocation to Texas and current non-practice status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Murraine violate client-trust rules?	Murraine violated 1.15(a),(b) and 8.4(h).	No intent to defraud; no client funds used for personal gain; no evidence of harm.	Yes, violations established.
What sanction is appropriate for the misconduct?	One-year suspension appropriate, stayed as in Johnston.	Same sanction, given lack of prior discipline and current non-practicing status.	One-year stayed suspension appropriate.
Should any aggravating or mitigating factors affect the sanction?	Factors should support the imposed sanction.	Mitigating factors reduce severity; no aggravators found.	Mitigating factors present; no aggravators; sanction upheld with stay.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Johnston, 121 Ohio St.3d 403 (2009-Ohio-1432) (one-year stayed suspension with probation and CLE requirements)