Disciplinary Counsel v. Truax, 148 Ohio St. 3d 190

Truax admitted that after depositing a client's retainer into his trust account, he withdrew $1,452.50 in unearned fees for his own personal use and overdrew the account by $14.78.
After investigation, Truax informed the client he had converted part of the retainer and offered a refund.
The client allowed Truax to continue representing her and to deduct the costs of his services from the converted amount.
Truax completed the representation without further incident.
The parties stipulate that Truax's conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c) (trust-account deposits and withdrawals).
As a sanction, the parties proposed a six-month suspension stayed conditioned on no further misconduct, with costs taxed to Truax.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Truax violate Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c)?	Relator asserts a 1.15(c) violation occurred.	Truax concedes a violation in the consent.	Yes, violation established.
Is a six-month stayed suspension an appropriate sanction?	Board and parties support a standard stayed sanction.	Truax agrees with the proposed sanction.	A six-month stayed suspension is appropriate.
Do mitigating factors justify the stayed sanction?	Mitigators include lack of prior discipline, no dishonest motive, restitution, cooperation.	Mitigators apply and support the stay.	Mitigating factors justify the stayed sanction.
Is Vivyan precedent applicable to support the disposition?	Vivyan supports the standard disposition of a stayed suspension.	Vivyan is controlling precedent here.	Yes, Vivyan precedent applies.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Vivyan, 125 Ohio St.3d 12 (2010) (standard disposition—cond. stayed six-month suspension where mitigating factors present)