# Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilson

> Ohio Supreme Court · January 22, 2026 · 2026 Ohio 165

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11244487

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 22, 2026
- **Citations:** 2026 Ohio 165
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 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/11244487

## Opinion text

[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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11244487. Public record. Not legal advice.