Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted findings that Douglas Whitney Bulson Jr. committed multiple violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, including client neglect, inadequate communication, improper trust-account management, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations. The court imposed an 18-month suspension, fully stayed subject to mental-health treatment, monitoring, trust-account compliance, and no further misconduct.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Bulson established that his major depression qualified as a mitigating disorder under Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7).
- Whether an actual suspension was necessary to protect clients despite the mitigating mental-health evidence.
- What sanction was appropriate for Bulson's stipulated and adjudicated professional misconduct.
Holdings
- An attorney establishes a qualifying mitigating mental disorder by presenting evidence of a diagnosis by a qualified healthcare professional, a determination that the disorder contributed to the misconduct, a sustained period of successful treatment, and a prognosis that the attorney can return to competent, ethical, and professional practice under specified conditions. Bulson satisfied those requirements for major depression.
- An actual suspension was not required where the misconduct was mitigated by a qualifying mental-health disorder and the conditions imposed on a fully stayed suspension adequately protected clients from future harm.
- The court adopted the board's findings of misconduct and imposed an 18-month suspension, fully stayed on specified conditions.
Key quotations
“For a mental disorder to qualify as a mitigating factor under Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7), a respondent must present evidence of (1) a diagnosis of the disorder by a qualified healthcare professional, (2) a determination that the disorder contributed to the misconduct, (3) a sustained period of successful treatment, and (4) a prognosis from a qualified healthcare professional that the attorney will be able to return to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law under specified conditions.” (¶ 23)
“Accordingly, we overrule relator’s objection to the board’s findings and recommended sanction and suspend Douglas Whitney Bulson Jr. from the practice of law for 18 months, fully stayed on the conditions” (¶ 34)
Factual background
Bulson neglected three client matters, failed to communicate with clients, mishandled or failed to document client-trust-account funds, failed to refund an unearned fee promptly, and did not timely cooperate with disciplinary investigations. The Board of Professional Conduct found multiple aggravating factors but also found that Bulson's diagnosed major depression qualified as a mitigating disorder because it contributed to the misconduct, had been successfully treated for a sustained period, and was subject to a favorable prognosis under specified conditions. The court accepted the board's findings and imposed an 18-month suspension fully stayed subject to treatment, monitoring, probation, and no further misconduct.
Procedural history
The Columbus Bar Association filed an amended disciplinary complaint charging Bulson with neglect of three client matters, improper client-trust-account management, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations. After stipulations, exhibits, and a hearing, a panel and the Board of Professional Conduct found most of the alleged violations and recommended an 18-month suspension fully stayed on conditions. The Supreme Court of Ohio overruled the relator's objection, adopted the board's findings and recommendation with additional conditions, and entered judgment accordingly.