Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley, 128 Ohio St.3d 317, 2011-Ohio-234.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MEDLEY.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley, 128 Ohio St.3d 317, 2011-Ohio-234.]

Attorneys — Misconduct — Accepting and seeking payment while suspended from

judicial position without pay — Indefinite license suspension.

(No. 2010-1793 — Submitted January 4, 2011 — Decided January 27, 2011.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-024.

_______________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, William Scott Medley of Gallipolis, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0031001, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1980.

This court publicly reprimanded respondent in 2001. Disciplinary Counsel v.

Medley (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 474, 478, 756 N.E.2d 104. In December 2004, we

suspended him from the practice of law in Ohio for 18 months with six months

stayed and concurrently suspended him, without pay, from his position as judge of

the Probate Court of Gallia County. Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley, 104 Ohio

St.3d 251, 2004-Ohio-6402, 819 N.E.2d 273, ¶ 43. He was reinstated to the

practice of law in December 2005. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances

and Discipline has accepted the parties’ agreed stipulations and recommends that

we indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law based upon findings

that he cashed state payroll warrants that were erroneously issued during his

suspension without pay and made false statements in seeking the reissuance of

four expired payroll warrants. We accept the board’s findings of fact and

misconduct and indefinitely suspend respondent from the practice of law. We

condition any future petition for reinstatement upon his payment of full restitution

to the state of Ohio.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Misconduct

{¶ 2} On February 8, 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a one-

count complaint alleging that respondent had violated the Code of Professional

Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct1 by cashing state payroll

warrants totaling $71,405.04 in gross wages and by making false statements in

2009 claims for the reissuance of four expired payroll warrants. Those payments

were erroneously issued by the state from January to December 2005 while

respondent was suspended without pay from his position as a Gallia County

probate judge.

{¶ 3} The panel and board accepted the parties’ agreed stipulations of

fact and agreed that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and

Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (both prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and DR 1-102(A)(6) and

Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (both prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects upon a

lawyer’s fitness to practice law).

Sanction

{¶ 4} In recommending a sanction, the panel and board considered the

aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and

Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board

of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). See Stark

Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d

818, ¶ 16. Consistent with the parties’ stipulations, the panel and board found that

respondent’s prior disciplinary offenses and dishonest or selfish motive were

aggravating factors weighing in favor of a greater sanction. See BCGD Proc.Reg.

1

Relator charged respondent with misconduct pursuant to applicable rules for acts occurring

before and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which

superseded the Code of Professional Responsibility.

2

January Term, 2011

10(B)(1)(a) and (b). They also found, however, that respondent’s full and free

disclosure during relator’s investigation, his cooperative attitude toward the

disciplinary proceedings, and his positive character evidence were mitigating

factors weighing in favor of a lesser sanction. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c),

(d), and (e). In consideration of the respondent’s conduct and the applicable

aggravating and mitigating factors, the parties have stipulated that the appropriate

sanction for respondent’s misconduct is an indefinite suspension. The panel and

board have accepted this recommendation and further recommend that respondent

not be permitted to petition this court for reinstatement until he has paid full

restitution to the state of Ohio.2

{¶ 5} Although we acknowledge that respondent has cooperated in

relator’s investigation of this matter, we observe that he did not respond to this

court’s initial inquiry regarding his receipt of the erroneously issued payroll

warrants. Moreover, the two letters that he has submitted from colleagues

attesting to his good character and touting his work with the local high school

mock trial program are of minimal mitigating value in light of his knowing receipt

and retention of $71,405.04 in unearned compensation from the state of Ohio and

his initial failure to abide by the terms of his repayment agreement.

{¶ 6} Nonetheless, we agree that an indefinite suspension is the

appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct. Therefore, we adopt the

parties’ stipulated sanction and indefinitely suspend William Scott Medley from

the practice of law in Ohio and condition any future petition for reinstatement

upon his payment of full restitution to the state of Ohio. Costs are taxed to

respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

2

The parties stipulate that as of September 1, 2010, respondent has repaid $23,500 and has agreed

to pay $2,000 per month until the debt is satisfied.

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.

__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri,

Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

William Scott Medley, pro se.

__________________

4