Disciplinary Counsel v. Simpson

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Simpson, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-54.] 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. 2014-OHIO-54 DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SIMPSON. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Simpson, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-54.] Attorneys Misconduct Failure to promptly deliver funds that client is entitled to receive Failure to cooperate in disciplinary investigation Consent to discipline One-year suspension stayed on conditions. (No. 2013-0922 Submitted July 9, 2013 Decided January 21, 2014.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-097. ____________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Respondent, Jeffrey Glenn Simpson of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0080376, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2006. On December 10, 2012, relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Simpson with professional misconduct following Simpson s representation of a landlord in an eviction matter. After obtaining a judgment in favor of his client and taking SUPREME COURT OF OHIO possession of a rent-payment check issued by the tenant, Simpson then lost or misplaced the check and failed to pay his client the rent money and failed to respond to his client s numerous requests for information about the rent payment. Relator also alleged that Simpson failed to cooperate in the subsequent disciplinary investigation regarding the matter. {¶ 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. {¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Simpson stipulates to the facts alleged in relator s complaint and agrees that his conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client), 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property that the client is entitled to receive), 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer s fitness to practice law) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation). Relator requests the dismissal of the alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). {¶ 4} The parties stipulate that mitigating factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the payment of full restitution to the client, and Simpson s evidence of good character and reputation. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (e). As an aggravating factor, the parties note that Simpson engaged in multiple offenses by failing to respond to his client s requests for information about the recovered rent payment, failing to deliver the rent payment to the client, and failing to promptly respond to relator s requests for information during the investigation. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d). Based upon these 2 January Term, 2014 factors, the parties stipulate that the appropriate sanction for Simpson s misconduct is a one-year suspension from the practice of law, with the entire suspension stayed upon the conditions that Simpson engage in no further misconduct and comply with all treatment recommendations from the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program ( OLAP ), Dr. Daniel J. Rapport, and/or Dr. John Wryobeck. {¶ 5} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and recommend that we adopt the agreement in its entirety. {¶ 6} We agree that Simpson violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(d), 8.1(b), and 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and, as stated in the parties agreement, that this conduct warrants a one-year suspension with the entire suspension stayed on conditions. Therefore, we adopt the parties consent-todiscipline agreement, and we dismiss the charged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d). {¶ 7} Accordingly, Jeffrey Glenn Simpson is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year with the entire suspension stayed upon the conditions that Simpson (1) comply with the treatment recommendations of OLAP, Dr. Rapport, and/or Dr. Wryobeck and (2) commit no further misconduct. If Simpson fails to comply with the conditions of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and Simpson will serve the one-year suspension. Costs are taxed to Simpson. Judgment accordingly. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O NEILL, JJ., concur. ____________________ Karen H. Osmond, for relator. ________________________ 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.