Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilson

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as

Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilson, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-165.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before

the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2026-OHIO-165

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WILSON.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it

may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilson,

Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-165.]

Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct,

including lack of diligent representation and prompt communication, trust-

account mishandling, and failure to withdraw from representation so that

client’s interests are protected—Six-month suspension, fully stayed on

conditions.

(No. 2025-1000—Submitted September 16, 2025—Decided January 22, 2026.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the

Supreme Court, No. 2024-043.

__________________

The per curiam opinion below was joined by DEWINE, WILKIN, HAWKINS,

and SHANAHAN, JJ. KENNEDY, C.J., concurred in part and dissented in part, with

an opinion joined by FISCHER and HUFFMAN, JJ. KRISTY S. WILKIN, J., of the

Fourth District Court of Appeals, sat for BRUNNER, J. MARY KATHERINE

HUFFMAN, J., of the Second District Court of Appeals, sat for DETERS, J.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Darnell Maurice Wilson, of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0096352, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2017.

{¶ 2} In a December 2024 complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged

Wilson with ten violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct arising out of his

representation of a single client. Among other things, relator alleged that Wilson

had neglected the client’s legal matter, failed to comply with a proper discovery

request, and failed to reasonably communicate with the client, properly handle the

client’s retainer, seek court permission to withdraw from the representation, and

take reasonably practicable steps to protect the client’s interest upon his

withdrawal. Wilson waived a probable-cause determination.

{¶ 3} The parties entered into stipulations of fact in which they agreed that

Wilson had committed seven of the charged rule violations. The parties also

stipulated to aggravating and mitigating factors and submitted 35 stipulated

exhibits. Wilson submitted four additional exhibits.

{¶ 4} Wilson and his former client testified at a hearing before a three-

member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct. After the hearing, the panel

unanimously dismissed three disputed rule violations, finding that relator had failed

to prove them by clear and convincing evidence.

{¶ 5} The panel later issued a report in which it found by clear and

convincing evidence that Wilson had committed the seven rule violations to which

he stipulated. The panel recommended that he be suspended from the practice of

law for six months, stayed in its entirety on the conditions that he commit no further

misconduct and complete a one-year term of monitored probation. The board

adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended

sanction. No objections have been filed.

{¶ 6} After independently reviewing the record and our precedent, we adopt

the board’s findings of misconduct and suspend Wilson from the practice of law

2

January Term, 2026

for six months with the suspension stayed in its entirety on the conditions that he

commit no further misconduct and complete a one-year term of monitored

probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND MISCONDUCT

{¶ 7} Wilson commenced his solo law practice in 2018. In need of legal

counsel, Zola Stewart sought Wilson’s assistance in February 2020. Wilson agreed

to represent Stewart at an hourly rate of $150, to be billed against a $1,500 retainer.

In late February, Wilson texted Stewart, inquiring about the retainer. They

exchanged several more text messages in which Stewart informed Wilson that she

had the money and would send it to him electronically and Wilson agreed to email

Stewart a fee agreement. In early March, Stewart signed a fee agreement and paid

Wilson’s retainer in two installments through an electronic-payment system, Cash

App, which was linked to Wilson’s firm’s operating account. Wilson did not

transfer the funds into either of his two client trust accounts.

{¶ 8} Stewart was the owner and statutory agent of Focus Solutions, Inc., a

privately held Ohio corporation. Through Focus Solutions, Stewart contracted with

the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati to provide consulting

services regarding efforts to engage local minority-owned small businesses in

government contracts.

{¶ 9} In November 2019, the Hamilton County Board of County

Commissioners filed a complaint against Stewart and Focus Solutions on behalf of

the sewer district, alleging the submission of false invoices. See Hamilton Cty. Bd.

of Cty. Commrs. v. Focus Solutions, Inc., Hamilton C.P. No. A1905324 (Nov. 7,

2019). Two alleged former employees of the sewer district were also named as

defendants. The allegations in the complaint were based on the findings of a special

audit conducted by the Ohio auditor of state and charged that Stewart, as the

president of Focus Solutions, had, on 23 different occasions, billed the sewer

district for more than 24 hours of work in a single day.

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 10} Wilson filed an answer to the complaint on March 7, 2020. Shortly

thereafter, the Hamilton County courts restricted their operations because of the

COVID-19 pandemic. In February 2021, the Hamilton County Court of Common

Pleas consolidated the case against Stewart and Focus Solutions with several other

cases that had been filed by the county commissioners arising out of the same

special audit. Although Wilson did not file the motion to consolidate the cases, he

attended the hearing and provided email authority for the moving party to sign his

name to the proposed consolidation order, underscoring that he did not oppose the

motion.

{¶ 11} On May 4, 2021, the county commissioners served discovery

requests on Wilson. In response to relator’s letter of inquiry regarding the

grievance that Stewart filed against him in December 2023, Wilson said that he

mailed a copy of the discovery requests to Stewart on May 11 at her residential

address. He also said that on May 31, he mailed Stewart an invoice for outstanding

legal fees in the amount of $2,396.50. During Wilson’s disciplinary hearing,

Stewart testified that she never received the discovery requests or the invoice.

Despite having previously and successfully communicated with Stewart by text

message, Wilson stipulated that he never sent Stewart a text message regarding the

discovery requests or the alleged outstanding legal fees.

{¶ 12} In mid-July 2021, Wilson exchanged several emails with the

assistant county prosecutor assigned to Stewart’s case regarding the pending

discovery requests. Wilson represented that he and Stewart were working on the

discovery and had obtained a 30-day extension of time in which to complete their

responses. However, Wilson had no contact with Stewart from October 2020 until

August 24, 2021—when he exchanged several text messages with her to schedule

a Zoom meeting.

{¶ 13} Stewart reached out to Wilson by text message on the day of their

scheduled meeting, but Wilson did not respond until the next day, at which time he

4

January Term, 2026

informed Stewart that he had just recovered his phone, which he had lost at the

courthouse. A few days later, Stewart and Wilson exchanged additional text

messages in which Stewart requested a copy of the complaint that had been filed

against her and scheduled a time to talk with Wilson by phone. But Wilson did not

send her the complaint, and the scheduled phone conversation did not take place.

{¶ 14} Wilson testified that he mailed a second copy of the discovery

requests to Stewart sometime in September 2021, though he did not provide relator

with a copy of that correspondence and Stewart testified that she never received the

discovery requests. Wilson acknowledged that he never responded to the discovery

requests on Stewart’s behalf and that he stopped working on her case altogether in

September 2021.

{¶ 15} Wilson testified that he sent Stewart a letter at the end of September

2021, informing her that he was withdrawing from her case because she had not

paid her legal fees. But Stewart never received that letter or any other

communication regarding Wilson’s alleged withdrawal. And although Wilson was

aware that a local rule provides that an attorney of record “shall not be permitted to

withdraw except upon motion and for good cause shown,” see Hamilton C.P.,

Gen.Div., Loc.R. 10(F), he never moved the common pleas court for permission to

withdraw as counsel for Stewart and Focus Solutions. Nor did he communicate his

alleged intent to withdraw to the assistant county prosecutor or any other attorney

involved in the consolidated case. Consequently, Wilson continued to receive

emails, pending motions, and court notices regarding the case.

{¶ 16} On October 28, 2021, the county commissioners filed a motion for

default judgment against Stewart and Focus Solutions, asking the common pleas

court to issue either an order compelling discovery or, alternatively, to enter a

default judgment against them and issue an order striking their defenses. The

assistant county prosecutor served the motion on Wilson because he was still the

attorney of record, and although Wilson received the motion, he failed to inform

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Stewart of it. Wilson also failed to inform opposing counsel that he was no longer

working on the case. He neither filed a response to the motion nor appeared at the

hearing on the motion.

{¶ 17} The common pleas court entered a default judgment against Stewart

and Focus Solutions for $163,261 plus interest in the amount of $20,649.07, for a

total of $183,910.07. But Wilson did not notify Stewart of the judgment, and

because Wilson remained counsel of record, Stewart did not receive any notices

from the court.

{¶ 18} In November 2023, Stewart received her first order and notice of

garnishment. Believing that Wilson still represented her, though she had not

communicated with him in more than two years, she attempted to reach him by

email, phone, and text message, seeking an explanation for the garnishment. But

Wilson never responded to her inquiries. At the disciplinary hearing, Stewart

explained the more than two-year gap in her communication with Wilson by saying,

“No news was—was good news for me.” By November 1, 2024, Stewart’s

employer had withheld more than $20,000 from her earnings under the common

pleas court’s garnishment order.

{¶ 19} In December 2023, Stewart filed a grievance against Wilson with

relator. She sent Wilson a letter by regular mail in March 2024 terminating his

services and requesting her file. She later sent the same letter by certified mail.

But Wilson did not respond to either letter.

{¶ 20} The parties stipulated and the board found by clear and convincing

evidence that Wilson’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act

with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(1) (requiring a lawyer to

promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which

the client’s informed consent is required), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the

client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer

to deposit advance legal fees and expenses into a client trust account, to be

6

January Term, 2026

withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred), 1.16(c)

(prohibiting a lawyer from withdrawing from representation in a proceeding

without leave of court if the rules of the tribunal so require), 1.16(d) (requiring a

lawyer withdrawing from representation to take steps reasonably practicable to

protect the client’s interest), and 3.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from failing to make

a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an

opposing party). We adopt these findings of misconduct.

SANCTION

{¶ 21} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all

relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the

aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions

imposed in similar cases.

{¶ 22} In this case, the parties stipulated and the board found that two

aggravating factors are present: Wilson committed multiple offenses and harmed a

vulnerable victim. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(4) and (8). Mitigating factors

stipulated by the parties and found by the board consist of the absence of prior

discipline and Wilson’s cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.

See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1) and (4).

{¶ 23} In addition, the board found by clear and convincing evidence that

Wilson suffered from a mental condition that affected his representation of Stewart.

Wilson submitted a letter from his treating psychiatrist stating that Wilson had been

diagnosed with a major depressive disorder for which he had been receiving

treatment from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs since 2011. The

psychiatrist stated that Wilson’s mental condition during the relevant period was

exacerbated by the untimely death of his only brother, the death of his mother, and

his divorce. She further opined that Wilson’s symptoms were well controlled, that

his overall prognosis was good, and that she had no concerns regarding his ability

7

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

to practice law going forward. The board therefore found that Wilson’s mental

disorder qualified as a mitigating factor. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7).

{¶ 24} We note that in his disciplinary-hearing testimony, Wilson accepted

full responsibility for his misconduct, stating, “I am not here to defend the

indefensible. I’m here today . . . to take accountability for some gross errors that

. . . were . . . committed on my part.” He admitted that he made missteps and

mistakes and that his failure to be diligent in his representation of Stewart

“contribute[d] to a terrible outcome” for her. Wilson testified that he has instituted

changes so that client payments made through Cash App are deposited directly into

his client trust account. He also stated that while he accepted a wide variety of

cases earlier in his practice, in the last two years, he has limited his practice to estate

planning.

{¶ 25} Relator argued that Wilson should be suspended from the practice of

law for 18 months with 12 months stayed, and he offered cases in support of that

recommendation. But the board noted that relator’s recommendation relied in part

on three alleged rule violations that were ultimately dismissed by the hearing panel.

Relying on Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Malvasi, 2015-Ohio-2361, Columbus Bar

Assn. v. Kluesener, 2017-Ohio-4417, and Columbus Bar Assn. v. McCarty, 2024-

Ohio-4940, the board recommends that we suspend Wilson from the practice of law

in Ohio for six months with the suspension stayed in its entirety on the conditions

that he engage in no further misconduct and complete a one-year term of monitored

probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21).

{¶ 26} In Malvasi, the attorney accepted a $2,500 retainer from a couple to

pursue a civil action against the seller of their home and the realtor involved in the

transaction. Malvasi neglected the clients’ legal matter for nearly a year, failed to

deposit their retainer into his client trust account, failed to keep the clients

reasonably informed about the status of their matter, and failed to promptly comply

8

January Term, 2026

with their reasonable requests for information. He never filed the clients’

complaint.

{¶ 27} No aggravating factors were present in Malvasi, but mitigating

factors consisted of his clean disciplinary record, lack of a dishonest or selfish

motive, good-faith effort to make restitution and rectify the consequences of his

misconduct, cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings, and good character and

reputation. Id. at ¶ 6. We also noted that Malvasi had suffered from health

problems and had primary responsibility for his elderly mother during his

misconduct. Id. We suspended Malvasi for six months, stayed in its entirety on the

condition that he commit no further misconduct, and required him to serve a one-

year term of monitored probation and attend a law-office-management seminar. Id.

at ¶ 10.

{¶ 28} In Kluesener, the attorney neglected a client’s products-liability

matter, failed to provide competent representation, failed to keep the client

reasonably informed about the status of the matter, and failed to comply with

discovery requests, misconduct that contributed to the trial court’s dismissal of the

client’s lawsuit with prejudice. Kluesener also failed to protect his client’s interests

when withdrawing from the representation. No aggravating factors were present.

Kluesener, 2017-Ohio-4417, at ¶ 10. However, mitigating factors consisted of

Kluesener’s clean disciplinary record, his lack of a dishonest or selfish motive, his

cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings, his good character and reputation, and

his full acknowledgement of his misconduct. Id. We suspended Kluesener from

the practice of law for six months and stayed the entire suspension on the condition

that he engage in no further misconduct. Id. at ¶ 14.

{¶ 29} In McCarty, the attorney abandoned his private practice without

notice after agreeing to represent a client in the administration of her mother’s

estate, and he failed to take reasonably practicable steps to protect the client’s

interests. During the resulting disciplinary investigation, the relator discovered that

9

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

McCarty had not deposited the fees paid by that client and one other into his client

trust account, that he had commingled personal and client funds in both his personal

and client trust accounts, and that he had failed to promptly deliver refunded

overpayments of court and other costs to 20 clients. Two aggravating factors were

present: a pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses. McCarty, 2024-Ohio-4940,

at ¶ 22. As for mitigating factors, McCarty had a clean disciplinary record, had not

acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, made timely restitution to his clients, and

exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings. Id. There too,

we imposed a stayed six-month suspension. Id. at ¶ 35.

{¶ 30} We acknowledge the two aggravating factors present in this case—

Wilson’s multiple offenses and that his conduct caused significant harm to Stewart,

who was a vulnerable client—and that the mitigating factors are not as numerous

as those present in Malvasi, Kluesener, and McCarty. However, we find

compelling the mitigating factors present here—particularly Wilson’s qualifying

mental disorder, which was exacerbated by the deaths of two close family members

and his own divorce proceedings, and his acceptance of responsibility for his

misconduct. We therefore agree that the appropriate sanction in this case is a six-

month suspension stayed in its entirety on the conditions recommended by the

board.

CONCLUSION

{¶ 31} Accordingly, Darnell Maurice Wilson is suspended from the practice

of law in Ohio for six months with the entire suspension stayed on the conditions

that he commit no further misconduct and serve a one-year period of monitored

probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21). If Wilson fails to comply with

any condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the full six-month

suspension. Costs are taxed to Wilson.

Judgment accordingly.

__________________

10

January Term, 2026

KENNEDY, C.J., joined by FISCHER and HUFFMAN, JJ., concurring in part

and dissenting in part.

{¶ 32} I agree with the court’s judgment in all respects except the condition

that respondent, Darnell Maurice Wilson, serve a one-year term of monitored

probation under Gov.Bar R. V(21). In my view, this nonspecific condition gives

little guidance to Wilson or his monitoring attorney and does not promote public

confidence that the underlying causes of Wilson’s misconduct will be addressed.

{¶ 33} Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A) provides that “[a]ny judicial officer or attorney

found guilty of misconduct shall be disciplined.” And Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(4)

provides that in conjunction with an order of suspension imposed under Gov.Bar

R. V(12)(A)(3), this court may impose “[p]robation for a period of time upon

conditions [that this court] determines.” Those conditions not only define the duties

of the monitoring attorney but also set the expectations this court has of Wilson.

{¶ 34} Gov.Bar R. V(21) sets forth the basic procedures for imposing

probation on an attorney in a disciplinary matter, and the conditions of the

monitored-probation term are essential to the scheme. In my view,

[a] term of probation should have sufficient conditions tied to a

respondent’s violations to protect the public from further violations

of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Supervisory activities should

be tailored to benefit a respondent. It is critical for the long-term

success of a respondent who has been disciplined that each case be

evaluated on the facts and circumstances of the misconduct. Much

like a trial-court judge who must impose individualized sentencing

for each defendant, this court should impose individualized

conditions for each term of monitored probation.

11

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Disciplinary Counsel v. Halligan, 2019-Ohio-3748, ¶ 45, (Kennedy, J., concurring

in part and dissenting in part).

{¶ 35} Therefore, in this case, I would impose the following specific

conditions for the term of Wilson’s probation: (1) that he participate in monthly

meetings with the monitoring attorney, (2) that he provide the monitoring attorney

with complete access to his Cash App or payment platform, the firm’s operating

account, and the client trust account, including all records required to be maintained

under Prof.Cond.R. 1.15, (3) that he maintain an active-case list or a docketing

system and provide the inventory of active cases and the related files to the

monitoring attorney for review, and (4) that he complete three hours of continuing

legal education (“CLE”) focused on law-office management and three hours of

CLE focused on client-trust-account management, in addition to the requirements

of Gov.Bar R. X.

{¶ 36} Because the majority imposes a one-year term of monitored

probation under Gov.Bar R. V(21) without defining any conditions for the term of

Wilson’s probation, I concur in part and dissent in part.

__________________

Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Ryan N. Sander, Assistant

Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Darnell Maurice Wilson, pro se.

________________________

12