Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio found that attorney Stanley Jackson committed multiple ethical violations, including charging a clearly excessive fee, undisclosed fee splitting, prejudicing a client, mishandling client funds, and making false statements during a disciplinary investigation. The court imposed a two-year suspension, with six months stayed subject to conditions including restitution, no further misconduct, and monitored probation upon reinstatement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the board's findings that Jackson committed multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Rules of Professional Conduct, and disciplinary rules should be accepted.
- What sanction is appropriate for Jackson's multiple ethical violations, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors and comparable disciplinary cases.
- Whether any portion of the two-year license suspension should be stayed on conditions.
Holdings
- The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the board's findings of fact and misconduct, including violations involving excessive and unrefunded fees, undisclosed fee division, prejudice or damage to a client, improper handling of client funds, dishonesty, false statements in a disciplinary matter, and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.
- The appropriate sanction was a two-year suspension of Jackson's license to practice law, with six months stayed on conditions.
- Six months of the two-year suspension was stayed on the conditions that Jackson commit no further misconduct, comply with his written restitution agreement concerning the Count I client, and serve one year of monitored probation upon reinstatement.
Key quotations
“Having weighed respondent’s misconduct and having given due consideration to the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and the sanctions imposed for similar misconduct, we conclude that the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct is a two-year suspension of his license to practice law in Ohio, with six months stayed on the conditions that he (1) commit no further acts of misconduct, (2) comply with his written agreement to pay restitution to the client affected by the misconduct in Count I, and (3) serve one year of monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9)(B) upon his reinstatement to the practice of law.” (¶ 27)
Factual background
Jackson charged a client a clearly excessive fee and failed to refund unearned fees after the representation ended. In another representation, he divided fees with outside attorneys without written disclosure or client consent, settled a related civil-rights action without the client's knowledge, signed the client's name to a settlement check without consent, failed to deliver or account for settlement funds, and failed to provide the client's file. During the disciplinary investigation and hearing, Jackson made inconsistent and false statements concerning his conduct.
Procedural history
Disciplinary Counsel filed a three-count amended complaint against respondent. A hearing panel found multiple ethical violations and recommended a two-year suspension with the second year stayed on conditions; the board adopted the findings but recommended a two-year suspension without a stay. The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the findings and imposed a two-year suspension with six months stayed on specified conditions.