Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court indefinitely suspended attorney Jerry D. Robertson for misappropriating or mishandling client funds, entering improper business transactions with clients, creating conflicts of interest, charging an excessive fee, and failing to maintain adequate client-fund records. The court held that the admitted violations warranted indefinite suspension even without a finding of dishonesty or deceit. The court considered mitigating factors, including repayment, cooperation, lack of a prior disciplinary record, and favorable character evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Robertson committed the charged violations of Ohio's Disciplinary Rules.
- Whether the board improperly found or relied on a dishonesty violation under DR 1-102(A)(4) after that charge had been dismissed for insufficient evidence.
- Whether the admitted misconduct warranted an indefinite suspension rather than the stipulated two-year suspension.
Holdings
- Robertson violated the specified Disciplinary Rules governing misuse of client confidences, conflicts of interest, business transactions with clients, safeguarding and accounting for client property, excessive fees, and delivery of client funds.
- The admitted Disciplinary Rule violations independently warranted an indefinite suspension; the absence of a DR 1-102(A)(4) dishonesty violation did not diminish the seriousness of the misconduct.
- Indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio was the appropriate sanction.
Key quotations
“A lawyer’s misuse of entrusted funds for any reason undermines the duty of loyalty that a lawyer owes as a fiduciary to the client. The breach is serious and warrants a commensurate sanction regardless of whether the lawyer also intended to deceive or cheat the client in the process.” (363)
“Respondent is therefore indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.” (364)
Factual background
While acting as attorney and power-of-attorney agent for an elderly client, Robertson retained cash and coins he could not account for and borrowed $69,289.38 from the client without the required disclosures or independent-counsel safeguards. While representing another client's estate and serving as cotrustee of a living trust, he withdrew $41,284.91 for himself or his creditors without adequately documenting the transaction. In a separate matter, he took a $9,107 fee from a client's trust account but could document earning only $350, and he failed to properly supervise client-trust-account records.
Procedural history
Disciplinary Counsel filed a four-count complaint alleging violations of Ohio's former Disciplinary Rules arising from respondent's handling of client and trust funds, business transactions with clients, conflicts of interest, excessive fees, and inadequate accounting. Respondent admitted the charged violations, except that the court rejected the asserted DR 1-102(A)(4) dishonesty violation. The board recommended indefinite suspension, the respondent objected, and the Supreme Court of Ohio overruled the objections and accepted the recommendation.