Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Edward Timothy Kathman violated multiple professional-conduct rules, including duties concerning supervision of a nonlawyer employee, client financial assistance, IOLTA recordkeeping, commingling and improper use of client funds, and safeguarding trust-account funds. The court imposed a one-year suspension, stayed six months conditionally, required completion of 24 hours of continuing legal education before reinstatement, and ordered one year of monitored probation after reinstatement.
Holdings
- Kathman violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.3(a) and 5.3(b) by failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure that his paralegal's conduct was compatible with his professional obligations and by failing to exercise reasonable supervisory authority over her work.
- Kathman violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(e) by advancing money to five clients in connection with pending or contemplated litigation, outside the rule's limited exceptions.
- Kathman violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(5) by failing to maintain required trust-account records, deposit documentation, bank records, and monthly reconciliations.
- Kathman violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) and 1.15(b) by maintaining substantial personal funds in the IOLTA, commingling personal and client funds, issuing checks before funds were collected or deposited, and using the IOLTA for unrelated funds.
- Kathman violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) by failing to safeguard client or third-party funds and failing to promptly remedy unauthorized access to his IOLTA through a linked PayPal account.
- A one-year suspension from the practice of law, with six months conditionally stayed, was warranted, along with completion of 24 hours of continuing legal education before reinstatement and one year of monitored probation after reinstatement.
Questions Presented
- Whether Kathman violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct through inadequate supervision of a nonlawyer employee.
- Whether Kathman violated the rules by providing improper financial assistance to clients.
- Whether Kathman violated the rules governing IOLTA record keeping, commingling, use of client trust funds, and safeguarding of client or third-party funds.
- What sanction was warranted in light of the violations and the aggravating and mitigating factors.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kathman, 92 Ohio St.3d 92, 748 N.E.2d 1091 (2001)(followed)
- State v. Gorman, Hamilton C.P. No. B 1701441 (Feb. 28, 2018)(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Ball, 67 Ohio St.3d 401, 618 N.E.2d 159 (1993)(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Murraine, 130 Ohio St.3d 397, 2011-Ohio-5795, 958 N.E.2d 942(followed)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Alexander, 133 Ohio St.3d 232, 2012-Ohio-4575, 977 N.E.2d 633(followed)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Thompson, 69 Ohio St.2d 667, 669, 433 N.E.2d 602 (1982)(followed)
- Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Commt. v. Miles, 76 Ohio St.3d 574, 577, 669 N.E.2d 831 (1996)(followed)
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Podor, 121 Ohio St.3d 131, 2009-Ohio-358, 902 N.E.2d 488(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…