Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio permanently disbarred Charles Edward Bursey for extensive professional misconduct, including misappropriating and commingling client funds, forging clients’ signatures, neglecting client matters, and failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigations. The court concluded that the repeated misconduct and harm to multiple clients warranted permanent disbarment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the board's findings that respondent violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) should be adopted.
- What sanction is warranted for respondent's repeated misconduct, including client-fund misappropriation, forgery, neglect, dishonesty, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
Holdings
- The court accepted the board's findings that respondent violated numerous provisions of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), including rules concerning diligence, communication, fees, delivery and safekeeping of client funds, termination of representation, dishonesty, fitness to practice, disciplinary responses, and trust-account recordkeeping.
- Permanent disbarment is appropriate where an attorney's egregious and repeated misconduct includes neglect of client matters, misappropriation of client funds, dishonesty, harm to multiple clients, and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.
Key quotations
“Disbarment is generally the sanction when a lawyer’s neglect of a client’s case is coupled with misappropriation of the client's money and other professional misconduct” (¶ 42)
“Permanent disbarment is appropriate here as well.” (¶ 43)
“Respondent is therefore permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.” (¶ 43)
Factual background
Respondent misappropriated and commingled client funds, overdrew his client trust account, forged clients' signatures, failed to deliver settlement proceeds and client files, neglected multiple client matters, and made dishonest or misleading statements. He also withdrew more than $10,000 from a minor's estate account after his guardianship appointment had ended. Respondent repeatedly failed to respond to disciplinary investigators and did not answer the complaints.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court of Ohio had previously suspended respondent's license on an interim basis after finding that he posed a substantial threat of serious harm. Relators filed two disciplinary complaints alleging 11 counts of misconduct. Respondent failed to answer, the proceedings were consolidated, a master commissioner granted default, and the board adopted findings of misconduct and recommended disbarment. The Supreme Court accepted the findings and permanently disbarred respondent.