Dayton Bar Association v. Wilson, a.k.a. Camp.
No. 2010-0717
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted June 9, 2010—Decided October 14, 2010.
127 Ohio St.3d 10, 2010-Ohio-4937.
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Elizabeth R. Miller, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant, T.L.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} In June 2009, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a three-count amended complaint charging respondent, Y. Nicole Wilson, Attorney Registration No. 0075975, whose last known address is in Dayton, Ohio, with multiple violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and
{¶ 2} Relator‘s three-count amended complaint charged respondent with issuing a bad trust-account check to a client after agreeing to refund his retainer, failing to act with reasonable diligence or to provide competent representation in
{¶ 3} Although the board attempted to serve relator‘s amended complaint on respondent via certified mail at her last known home and business addresses, the documents were returned by the postal service as undeliverable. On July 22, 2009, the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted service on respondent‘s behalf in accordance with
{¶ 4} The board referred the matter to a master commissioner, who prepared a report for the board‘s review. The board adopted the master commissioner‘s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation that we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law, rejecting relator‘s recommended sanction of permanent disbarment.
{¶ 5} We agree that respondent committed professional misconduct as found by the board and that her conduct warrants an indefinite suspension.
Misconduct
Count I
{¶ 6} With respect to Count I, the board found that respondent had informed relator that she would refund the retainer to a grievant who was dissatisfied with her representation in a bankruptcy proceeding. However, the bank returned for insufficient funds the $450 check she had issued to the client from her trust account. Respondent failed to respond to relator‘s repeated requests for a meeting to discuss the returned check and failed to honor a request that she appear before a scheduled meeting of the grievance committee.
{¶ 7} Based upon these findings, the board found that respondent had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients in a trust account separate from the lawyer‘s personal funds and maintain a record of the funds held for each client), 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that the client is entitled to receive), 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority), and
{¶ 8} We agree that respondent‘s conduct in issuing a client refund check from her trust account that was returned by the bank for insufficient funds clearly and
Count II
{¶ 9} Count II arises from respondent‘s agreement to represent a husband and wife in a custody matter involving their grandson. Respondent did not respond to relator‘s repeated attempts to obtain information regarding this grievance. Based upon these factual findings, the board concluded that respondent‘s failure to respond to relator‘s attempts to inquire about this grievance violated Prof. Cond.R. 8.1(b) and
{¶ 10} We accept the board‘s findings of fact, agree that respondent‘s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and
Count III
{¶ 11} Count III involves a grievance filed by another husband and wife who had retained respondent to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Although respondent commenced the clients’ bankruptcy proceeding, the board found that she had failed to stop the improper garnishment of the husband‘s paycheck. And when the clients sent respondent documents that she had instructed them to obtain, the envelope was returned by the post office marked “undeliverable.” Based upon these findings, the board concluded that respondent had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 and 1.3. We accept these findings of fact and misconduct.
{¶ 12} The board also found that “Relator‘s investigator has attempted to contact Respondent regarding this grievance on two occasions, but the first attempt to contact her was returned as ‘not deliverable as addressed’ and Respondent has failed to respond to the second request.” While relator alleges
{¶ 13} Nonetheless, because we find that the record contains clear and convincing evidence that respondent has not responded to relator‘s repeated attempts to obtain information regarding this grievance and has not filed an answer in this proceeding, we accept the board‘s findings that respondent has violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and
Sanction
{¶ 14} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. In making a final determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.“). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.
{¶ 15} Respondent has breached her duties to her clients by failing to maintain accurate records of the funds held in her client trust account, failing to promptly deliver funds that a client was entitled to receive, and failing to provide diligent and competent legal representation to another client. Moreover, she has breached her duty to the public and legal profession by failing to participate in the disciplinary process.
{¶ 16} The master commissioner and board found that at least five of the nine aggravating factors set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) are present, including (1) a pattern of misconduct, (2) multiple offenses, (3) lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process, (4) refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct, and (5) failure to make restitution. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), (g), and (i). In mitigation, the board found only that respondent has no prior disciplinary record. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).
{¶ 17} Based upon these findings, the master commissioner recommended that respondent‘s law license be indefinitely suspended. The board adopted this recommendation.
{¶ 18} An indefinite suspension is an appropriate sanction for a lawyer who has violated the standards of professional competence, diligence, and integrity by failing to maintain accurate records of the funds held in her client trust account, failing to promptly deliver funds that a client was entitled to receive, failing to provide diligent and competent legal representation to her clients, and failing to
{¶ 19} Having reviewed the record, weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and considered the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct, we adopt the board‘s recommended sanction of an indefinite suspension. Accordingly, Y. Nicole Wilson, also known as Y. Nicole Camp, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the state of Ohio. A condition of any possible reinstatement is the payment of restitution of $450 to the client in Count I, with interest at the statutory rate from the date of suspension. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O‘Connor, O‘Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Richard L. Carr Jr., for relator.