Disciplinary Counsel v. Taubman
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Ohio?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Ohio. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Taubman, admitted to the Ohio bar in 1976, admitted to professional misconduct for negligently withdrawing settlement proceeds held in a client guardianship account for his personal use in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) and 8.4(h). The parties stipulated that no aggravating factors existed and to the absence of a prior disciplinary record, a timely good-faith effort to rectify the misconduct, full and free disclosure to the board and a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and Taubman’s good character or reputation. The parties agreed that a stayed six-month suspension was the appropriate sanction; the board recommended adoption of the consent-to-discipline agreement. The Ohio Supreme Court adopted the agreement.
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Taubman, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-3704.] 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. 2013-OHIO-3704 DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. TAUBMAN. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Taubman, Slip Opinion No. 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. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 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 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 Taubman s 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, 2 January Term, 2013 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. ____________________ Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. Richard S. Koblentz and Kevin R. Marchaza, for respondent. ________________________ 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
