# Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sayler

> Ohio Supreme Court · November 13, 2002 · 97 Ohio St. 3d 239

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11152731

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 13, 2002
- **Citations:** 97 Ohio St. 3d 239; 2002 Ohio 5936
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11152731

## Opinion text

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 97 Ohio St.3d 239.]

CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SAYLER.
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sayler, 2002-Ohio-5936.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Six-month suspension with entire suspension
stayed on condition that no additional violations of Disciplinary Rules are
committed—Failing to keep clients’ funds in an identifiable bank
account—Failing to account appropriately for clients’ funds.
(No. 2002-1128—Submitted August 27, 2002—Decided November 13, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-49.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶1} We are asked in this case to decide the sanction for an attorney who
failed to keep his clients’ funds in an identifiable bank account and also failed to
appropriately account for those funds. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances
and Discipline found that respondent, John L. Sayler of Lakewood, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0025452, committed this misconduct in violation of DR 9-102(A)
(failure to maintain client’s funds, other than advances for costs and expenses, in
an identifiable bank account) and (B)(3) (failure to maintain complete records of
client’s funds in attorney’s possession). The board recommended that respondent
be suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a period of six months but that
mitigating circumstances warrant a stay of this suspension. We agree with the
board.
{¶2} In March 1994, a married couple granted respondent a power of
attorney, giving him authority over their financial affairs. Respondent thereafter
took control over $12,407.05 of the couple’s funds, but he did not maintain the
funds in a bank account separate and identifiable from his own. Respondent also
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

failed to account for his clients’ money. After the husband passed away, respondent
returned all of the couple’s funds to the widow on or about February 2, 2001.
{¶3} Relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a complaint on June
11, 2001, charging respondent with violations of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. A panel of the board heard the cause and, based on the parties’
stipulations, found the facts as stated and that respondent had committed the cited
misconduct.
{¶4} In recommending a sanction, the panel considered the opinion of
respondent’s treating psychiatrist, who reported that respondent suffered from
severe depression during the events at issue. According to his doctor, respondent’s
condition caused him to be completely unable to recall what happened to his clients’
funds, including whether he had misplaced or mismanaged their money.
Notwithstanding this, the doctor indicated that respondent had been active in
treating his illness for the last six or seven years and that he is now successfully
controlling it through medication. The doctor saw no residual impediment to
respondent’s current ability to responsibly engage in his law practice.
{¶5} Based on this evidence and respondent’s remorse, the panel
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months
but that the entire suspension be stayed. The board adopted the panel’s findings of
misconduct and recommendation.
{¶6} We also find that respondent violated DR 9-102(A) and (B)(3) and that
a stayed six-month suspension is appropriate in view of respondent’s illness, single
count of misconduct, contrition, restitution, cooperation, and the lack of a prior
history of discipline. Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the
practice of law in Ohio for a period of six months; however, the entire suspension
is stayed on the condition that respondent refrain from committing any additional
violations of the Disciplinary Rules. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

2
January Term, 2002

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
Robert Steely and Mildred K. Schad, for relator.
John L. Sayler, pro se.
__________________

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11152731. Public record. Not legal advice.