Disciplinary Counsel v. Eichenberger

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Raymond Leland Eichenberger violated professional-conduct rules by commingling personal and client funds, failing to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation, and engaging in dishonesty and misrepresentation. The court imposed a two-year suspension from practice, staying the second year subject to no further misconduct, completion of a financial-management CLE course, and monitored probation upon reinstatement.

Holdings

1. A disciplinary authority's issuance of a subpoena to a third party for bank records during an administrative investigation, before probable cause has been found and before formal charges are filed, does not require contemporaneous notice to the attorney under the Due Process Clause.
2. The respondent's equal-protection claim failed because, when the subpoena was issued, he was not similarly situated to attorneys who had already been formally charged and were parties to an adjudicative proceeding.
3. The evidence supported by clear and convincing evidence the findings that the respondent commingled personal and client funds, failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation, engaged in dishonesty and misrepresentation, and prejudiced the administration of justice.
4. A two-year suspension from the practice of law, with the second year stayed on conditions, was the appropriate sanction for the respondent's misconduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether disciplinary counsel violated the respondent's procedural due-process rights by subpoenaing his bank records during the investigative stage without contemporaneous notice.
2. Whether the lack of notice violated the Equal Protection Clause.
3. Whether the evidence clearly and convincingly established commingling, dishonesty, failure to cooperate, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
4. What sanction was appropriate for the respondent's misconduct.

Disposition

other