Disciplinary Counsel v. Wickerham
132 Ohio St. 3d 205
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Wickerham admitted to practice in Ohio in 2002; license suspended on an interim basis in 2011 for misconduct and potential harm to the public.
- She remained suspended for failure to register for the 2011–2013 biennium.
- Relator filed a 30-count complaint alleging numerous Rules violations and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) violations.
- A master commissioner granted default; evidence showed widespread mispractice, neglect, misappropriation, and poor client communication.
- The Board adopted the master commissioner’s findings and recommended permanent disbarment.
- The court adopted the board’s findings and permanently disbarred Wickerham, with costs taxed to her.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relator proved misconduct by clear and convincing evidence | Wickerham violated numerous Rules; evidence clear | Wickerham did not contest; no adequate defenses | Yes, proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether permanent disbarment is appropriate sanction | Pattern of dishonesty, misappropriation, and noncooperation warrant disbarment | Mitigating factors could justify lesser sanction | Yes, disbarment appropriate |
| Whether mitigating factors exist that would lessen sanction | No mitigating factors justify lesser sanction | Mental health/substance issues present but not mitigating | No mitigating factors override conduct; disbarment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (aggravating factors considered in discipline)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones, 112 Ohio St.3d 46 (2006-Ohio-6367) (presumptive sanction for pattern of misconduct is disbarment)
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Fernandez, 99 Ohio St.3d 426 (2003-Ohio-4078) (misappropriation presumes disbarment)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Weaver, 102 Ohio St.3d 264 (2004-Ohio-2683) (reiterates harsh sanction for ongoing misconduct and failure to engage in discipline)