Toledo Bar Assn. v. Miller
132 Ohio St. 3d 63
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Miller, admitted to practice in 1999, was employed at Bugbee & Conkle LLP until 2009 and terminated December 21, 2009.
- Garnishment notices in 2007 regarding Miller’s Wisconsin judgment prompted Miller to sign false Bugbee responses as a partner.
- Miller and his wife filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in June 2009; Miller later received separation payments and liquidated retirement funds, without disclosure to the bankruptcy court.
- Miller directed a Bugbee bookkeeper to misappropriate funds from a Bugbee client escrow account to pay a separate Miller client’s filing fee, later reimbursed by the firm.
- The Board found Miller violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 3.3(a)(1), and 8.4(h); 8.4(c) was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller violated Rules 3.3(a)(1), 1.15(a), and 8.4(h). | Miller knowingly lied to courts and misused client funds. | Miller disputes or minimizes the extent of misrepresentations and misuses. | Yes; violations established. |
| Whether the misconduct warrants an actual suspension or stayed sanction. | Severe misconduct, including dishonesty and trust-account breaches, merits suspension. | A lesser sanction or probation could be sufficient given mitigating factors. | Actual one-year suspension with six months stayed appropriate. |
| Whether the six-month stay and probation terms are adequate to protect the public. | Stay should be conditioned by ongoing monitoring due to pattern of misconduct. | Monitoring may be sufficient after a stayed period given remorse and non-repeat history. | Stay conditioned; probation with monitoring required. |
| Whether costs should be taxed to Miller. | Costs appropriately assessed to respondent. | Costs taxed to respondent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Greene, 74 Ohio St.3d 13 (1995) (dishonesty to a court justifies suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Lukey, 110 Ohio St.3d 128 (2006-Ohio-3822) (actual suspension when misrepresentation to court)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Olivito, 110 Ohio St.3d 64 (2006-Ohio-3564) (two-year suspension with one year stayed for bankruptcy-related misrepresentations)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Shaffer, 98 Ohio St.3d 342 (2003-Ohio-1008) (misrepresentation to court supports discipline)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. LaRue, 122 Ohio St.3d 445 (2009-Ohio-3604) (trust-account mishandling can warrant stayed suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 381 (2006-Ohio-1194) (extensive misconduct and lack of candor can lead to indefinite suspension)