Toledo Bar Assn. v. Royer
133 Ohio St. 3d 545
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Royer admitted misconduct spanning before and after the 2007 effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Celestino paid Royer $3,000 and $4,500 for costs; Royer did not deposit funds or maintain required client trust records.
- Royer failed to timely file patent applications for Walters, causing loss of priority and neglect of entrusted matters.
- Royer failed to respond to a notice and abandonment in a Walters design patent application; he did not notify the client.
- Royer admitted neglect of entrusted matters and failed to maintain complete records and render proper accounts for Walters.
- The Supreme Court imposed a one-year suspension, stayed on conditions, with two years of monitored probation, CPA review, and an accountant’s report; costs taxed to Royer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Royer violated trust accounting and recordkeeping rules | Royer failed to deposit client funds and maintain records | Royer admitted misconduct and disputes only the extent | Yes, violations found |
| Whether Royer neglected entrusted legal matters in Walters patents | Royer neglected filing and inquiries; caused delays | Royer admitted neglect and sought mitigation | Yes, neglect established |
| Whether Royer neglected the Walters design patent and failed to notify client | Failure to respond to notice; abandonment not communicated | Admitted neglect | Yes, neglect established |
| Whether the sanction is appropriate and properly conditioned | Suspension with conditions warranted | Sanction should be lighter or less restrictive | Sanction appropriate with stayed suspension and conditions |
| Whether aggravating and mitigating factors justify the sanction | Aggravation from multiple offenses; vulnerable clients | Mitigation due to lack of prior discipline, restitution, cooperation | Factors support the stayed suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (aggravating factor considerations and similar sanctions guidance)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Holda, 125 Ohio St.3d 140 (2010-Ohio-1469) (rehabilitative sanctions with remaining duties facing attorney)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Rutherford, 112 Ohio St.3d 159 (2006-Ohio-6526) (suspension stayed on conditions for failure to act diligently)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330 (2008-Ohio-3836) (continuing ethical violation across rule changes; relevance to chronological applicability)