Disciplinary Counsel v. Walton, 147 Ohio St. 3d 357

Gerald Robert Walton, admitted 1980 (Ohio Atty. Reg. No. 0003914), was investigated after two overdrafts occurred in his client trust account in April 2015.
An investigator hand-delivered two letters of inquiry and a subpoena for Walton to appear at a deposition; Walton did not respond to the letters and failed to comply with the subpoena.
Relator charged Walton with violating Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) for failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.
The parties entered a consent-to-discipline agreement: stipulating the misconduct, admitting violations, and proposing a six-month suspension fully stayed on conditions.
Aggravating factor: failure to cooperate in the investigation. Mitigating factors: no prior discipline, no dishonest motive, eventual cooperation in the disciplinary proceeding, good character, ongoing mental-health treatment, OLAP enrollment, and a psychologist’s report finding Walton currently able to practice ethically and competently.
The Board recommended adoption of the agreement; the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted it and ordered a six-month suspension stayed on the condition of full compliance with the OLAP contract and no further misconduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Walton violated professional-conduct rules by failing to respond to disciplinary inquiries and a subpoena	Walton failed to respond to two letters of inquiry and a deposition subpoena, violating Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G)	Walton ultimately cooperated in the disciplinary proceeding and has mitigating mental-health treatment and OLAP compliance	Court held Walton violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G)
Appropriate sanction for failure to cooperate	Disciplinary counsel sought an actual or conditional suspension consistent with precedents	Walton and relator agreed to a six-month suspension fully stayed on conditions (OLAP compliance and no further misconduct)	Court approved the stipulated six-month suspension, fully stayed on recommended conditions
Whether Walton’s mental-health treatment and OLAP enrollment mitigate sanction	Relator agreed these are mitigating and support a stayed suspension	Walton relied on treatment, OLAP contract, psychologist’s evaluation to avoid active suspension	Court accepted mitigation and stayed suspension contingent on continued compliance
Effect of noncompliance with stay conditions	Implicitly argued a stayed suspension should be enforceable	Walton agreed that noncompliance should lift the stay	Court held that failure to comply will lift the stay and result in service of the full six-month suspension

Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Paterson, 786 N.E.2d 874 (2003) (public reprimand imposed where attorney failed to respond to disciplinary investigation and no aggravating factors were present)
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. James, 847 N.E.2d 438 (2006) (one-year suspension imposed for failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation and failure to respond to formal complaint)