Disciplinary Counsel v. Taubman

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Taubman, 136 Ohio St.3d 312, 2013-Ohio-3704.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. TAUBMAN.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Taubman, 136 Ohio St.3d 312,

2013-Ohio-3704.]

Attorneys—Misconduct—Negligently withdrawing settlement proceeds held in

client guardianship account—Consent to discipline—Six-month

suspension stayed on conditions.

(No. 2012-1715—Submitted April 23, 2013—Decided September 3, 2013.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-046.

____________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Bruce David Taubman of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0001410, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1976. In

June 2012, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Taubman with professional

misconduct for negligently withdrawing settlement proceeds held in a client

guardianship account for Taubman’s personal use.

{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.

See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11. In that agreement, Taubman stipulated to the facts as

alleged in relator’s complaint and agreed that his conduct violated Prof.Cond.R.

1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients in an interest-bearing client

trust account, separate from the lawyer’s own property) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a

lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to

practice law).

{¶ 3} The parties also stipulated that no aggravating factors exist and that

the mitigating factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, a timely

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of the misconduct, full and free

disclosure to the board and a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary

proceedings, and good character or reputation. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a),

(c), (d), and (e). The parties further agreed that a stayed six-month suspension is

the appropriate sanction for Taubman’s misconduct.

{¶ 4} The board recommended that we adopt the consent-to-discipline

agreement, but we remanded the matter because Taubman’s affidavit did not

conform to the requirements of BCGD Proc.Reg. 11(B). 134 Ohio St.3d 1463,

2013-Ohio-502, 983 N.E.2d 364. Upon submission of Taubman’s supplemental

affidavit, the board found that the consent-to-discipline agreement met the

requirements of our remand order, and the board again recommends that we adopt

the parties’ agreement. The board refers to similar disciplinary cases in support of

its recommendation, including Disciplinary Counsel v. Vivyan, 125 Ohio St.3d

12, 2010-Ohio-650, 925 N.E.2d 947 (imposing a six-month stayed suspension on

an attorney who withdrew for his personal use settlement proceeds held in trust

for a client).

{¶ 5} We agree that Taubman violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) and 8.4(h)

and, as stated in the parties’ agreement and as indicated by the cited precedent,

that this conduct warrants a stayed six-month suspension. Therefore, we adopt

the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.

{¶ 6} Accordingly, Taubman is hereby suspended from the practice of

law in Ohio for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the condition that

he commit no further misconduct. If Taubman fails to comply with the condition

of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and his license will be suspended for the full six

months. Costs are taxed to Taubman.

Judgment accordingly.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur.

2

January Term, 2013

____________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek

Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Richard S. Koblentz and Kevin R. Marchaza, for respondent.

________________________

3