DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WICKERHAM.
No. 2011-2032
Supreme Court of Ohio
June 14, 2012
132 Ohio St.3d 205, 2012-Ohio-2580
Submitted January 18, 2012
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michelle Wickerham, formerly of West Union, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0074984, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2002. We suspended her license on an interim basis on April 29, 2011, pursuant to
{¶ 2} Based upon findings that Wickerham has failed to answer disciplinary counsel‘s 30-count complaint and has committed neаrly 300 violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar in Ohio, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline now recommends that we permanently disbar Wickerham.
{¶ 3} Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we find that relator has proven the allegations in the complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, we adopt the board‘s findings of fact and conclusions of law and hereby permanently disbar Wickerham from the practice of law in Ohio.
Procedural History and Misconduct
{¶ 4} Relator received the first of numerous grievances in December 2010. An assistant disciplinary counsel spoke with Wickerham on or about January 31,
{¶ 5} Wickerham acknowledged to assistant disciplinary counsel that she was receiving the griеvances sent to her by relator, and relator has submitted documentation that 11 of its certified letters of inquiry were accepted by a Kevin Moler at Wickerham‘s address. But Wickerham never responded to any of relator‘s letters of inquiry.
{¶ 6} On August 15, 2011, relator filed a 30-count complaint alleging that, among other things, Wickerham had violated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct and
{¶ 7} Unable to obtain service of the complaint on Wickerham at the addresses on file with the Office of Attorney Services or at a North Carolina address she had given to relator‘s investigator, relator obtained service upon the clerk of this court pursuant to
{¶ 8} Wickerham did not answer the complaint. Consequently, relator moved for defаult judgment and, in accordance with
{¶ 9} A master commissioner appointed by the board granted relator‘s motion for default. The evidence demonstrated that Wickerham violated the Rulеs of Professional Conduct by accepting retainers from clients and then failing to both reasonably communicate with those clients and honor the numerous promises she had made to them. She performеd few, if any, of the services she had agreed to provide and failed to withdraw from representation when her physical or mental condition, purportedly caused by her addiction to prescriptiоn drugs and her child-custody difficulties, materially impaired her ability to represent her clients. Affidavits from two judges, a magistrate, and her clients demonstrate that she failed to attend numerous hearings, often without noticе. Clients attempting to reach Wickerham found her office closed and her phone disconnected. Wickerham did not refund her clients’ retainers. She further violated the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio by failing to respond to
{¶ 10} Therefore, the master commissioner found that relator had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Wickerham had committed 30 violations of
{¶ 11} The evidence alsо clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Wickerham borrowed $13,000 from a client without advising her in writing of the inherent conflict of interest and the desirability of obtaining independent counsel or ensuring that the terms of thе transaction were fair, reasonable, and fully disclosed in a writing signed by the client. Indeed, the promissory note, signed by Wickerham alone, provides only the amount of the loan and an annual interest rate оf 18 percent. No deadline for repayment is mentioned. The master commissioner found that this conduct violated
{¶ 12} The board has adopted the master commissioner‘s findings of fact and misconduct as its own, and so do we.
Sanction
{¶ 13} In recommending a sanction, the master commissioner and board considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and (2). See Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. They found that six of thе nine aggravating factors set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) were present, including a dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process, harm to vulnerable clients, and failure to make restitution. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (h), and (i).
{¶ 14} The master commissioner and board found that that no mitigating factors were present. It is evident that Wickerham has serious mental-health and substance-abuse issues, but they do not qualify as mitigating factors pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). Scott Mote of OLAP avers that Wickerham signed a five-year recovery contract with OLAP on August 31, 2010, promised to attend 12-step meetings regularly, and sought admission to an intensive outpatient drug-treatment program. She did not follow through, however, and by October 22, the treatment center had closed Wickerham‘s file due to nonattendance. Wickerham had sporadic contact with OLAP thereafter, and in mid-February 2011, all contact ceased. Thus, there is no evidence that Wickerham has begun, let alone completed, an approved treatment program, that she underwent a sustained period of successful treatment, or that she will be able to return to the competent, ethical, and professional practicе of law in the future. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)(iii) and (iv).
{¶ 15} In this case, Wickerham has engaged in a pattern of misconduct that spanned more than four and a half years and involved numerous instances of misappropriаtion, totaling more than $35,000. Wickerham has neglected client matters, lied to her clients about the status of their matters and the work she intended to perform, and failed to reasonably communicate with her сlients. She has also failed to make restitution and failed to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigations. Her serious and repeated misconduct demonstrates that she is not fit to practicе law.
{¶ 16} The presumptive disciplinary sanction for a pattern of misconduct involving dishonesty, misappropriation, and lack of cooperation in disciplinary
{¶ 17} Accordingly, Michelle Wickerham is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Cоsts are taxed to Wickerham.
Judgment accordingly.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol A. Costa, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.