OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
     NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Phillips.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Phillips (1994),          Ohio
St.3d         .]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- One-year suspension stayed
      with attorney placed on two years' probation with
      conditions -- Conduct that adversely reflects on fitness
      to practice law -- Continuing multiple employment when
      client will be adversely affected by representation of
      another client -- Late payments of biennial registration
      fee -- Failure to cooperate with investigation of ethical
      complaint -- Failure to preserve identity of funds and
      property of clients.
      (No. 94-1810 -- Submitted October 11, 1994 -- Decided
December 7, 1994.)
      On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 93-86.
      In a complaint filed December 7, 1993, relator, Office of
Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent, Thomas Ewing Phillips
of Chillicothe, Ohio, Attorney 

 with
four counts of misconduct alleging numerous disciplinary
violations. In his answer, respondent admitted some of the
factual allegations of the complaint.
      An evidentiary hearing on the matter was held before a
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court ("board") on June 16, 1994.
The parties presented agreed stipulations, and respondent
testified. As to Count I of the complaint, in September 1991,
respondent represented Darrell S. Hatfield in several legal
matters. Hatfield and his wife, Melissa, had opened a business
in Chillicothe known as Yesterday's Olde Fashion Ice Cream
Parlour. In November 1991, prior to the filing of an
indictment against Mr. Hatfield, respondent represented him in
plea negotiations with the Ross County Prosecuting Attorney.
Mr. Hatfield had faced the possibility of being charged with
over twenty felonies for defrauding individuals and an
additional violence specification relating to an assault on a
police officer. However, respondent negotiated a plea
agreement in which Mr. Hatfield would be charged with two
counts of theft and one count of misuse of credit cards.
     At the time the plea agreement was reached, Mr. Hatfield
left town. Respondent and his wife assisted Mrs. Hatfield in
closing the business, settling outstanding business accounts,
and storing some personal property. Mr. Hatfield was
subsequently arrested and returned to Chillicothe, where he
pled guilty to two counts of theft and one count of misuse of
credit cards and was sentenced to three consecutive
eighteen-month sentences. After Mr. Hatfield was incarcerated,
he continued to call respondent up to five times a day,
complaining about various things. Respondent eventually
refused to talk to Mr. Hatfield, and Mr. Hatfield then accused
him of theft and other dishonest acts.
     Subsequently, at Mrs. Hatfield's request, respondent
represented her in a divorce proceeding against Mr. Hatfield.
Mrs. Hatfield was granted a divorce in June 1992, while Mr.
Hatfield was incarcerated.
     The panel concluded that respondent violated DR
1-102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's
fitness to practice law), and 5-105(B) (continuing multiple
employment when the exercise of independent professional
judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely to be
adversely affected by representation of another client) by
serving as Mrs. Hatfield's attorney in her divorce proceeding.
     As to Count II, respondent was fifteen months late in
paying his attorney registration fees for the 1991-1993
biennium and over two months late in paying his attorney
registration fees for the 1993-1995 biennium. The panel
concluded that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. VI(1)
(requirement to pay biennial registration fee).
     As to Count III, respondent agreed to represent Dean
Bocook in a personal-injury matter as well as a claim against
the Veterans Administration. During the course of his
representation of Bocook, respondent assisted Bocook in setting
up a plumbing business by loaning him money and co-signing
notes to purchase vehicles for the business. Respondent lent
Bocook approximately $80,000. When Bocook's money ran out,
respondent refused to give him any more, and respondent
repossessed one of the vehicles.
     In October and December 1992, relator sent two certified
letters to respondent requesting that he respond within
specified dates to the allegations of a grievance filed against
him by Bocook. Respondent failed to respond to the first
letter and responded six days late to the second letter. On
January 5, 1993, relator sent a letter to respondent,
requesting verification by January 19, 1993 that Bocook's files
had been returned to him. Relator received no response. The
panel concluded that respondent violated Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
(duty to cooperate with investigation of ethical complaint).
     As to Count IV, between March 20, 1990 and December 30,
1992, respondent's business trust account was charged with
forty-seven nonsufficient funds charges, and seventy-two checks
were returned to him. Respondent testified that no one was
ever harmed as a result of his banking problems. The panel
concluded that respondent violated DR 9-102(A) (preservation of
identity of funds and property of clients).
     The panel made several additional findings. Respondent is
a sole practitioner who handles between four hundred and five
hundred cases a year. He has only one secretary and does not
have a bookkeeper. Respondent conceded being flooded with
paperwork and not having an effective billing system. He let
his malpractice insurance lapse. Respondent is months behind
in filing new probate cases, filing inventories, and closing
old probate cases. Respondent admitted to having an alcohol
problem and to consuming about six beers every night. During a
one-week stay at Harding Hospital, he received some counseling
that addressed his alcohol problem.
     Relator recommended that respondent either receive a
public reprimand, or if respondent's office management problems
could not be remedied by a mere reprimand, a suspension stayed
upon monitoring of respondent's practice. Respondent indicated
that he was open to the idea of a monitoring attorney.
     The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from
the practice of law for one year, with the suspension stayed on
conditions that: (1) respondent's practice and law office
management shall be monitored for two years by an attorney
appointed by relator, (2) respondent shall attend twelve hours
of continuing legal education in law office management to be
completed in addition to the twenty-four hours of continuing
legal education he is required to complete between January 1,
1995 and December 31, 1996, (3) respondent shall enter into a
contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program and shall
abide by its terms and conditions for a minimum of two years,
and (4) respondent shall not be found in violation of any
further Disciplinary Rules for two years. The board adopted
the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of
the panel, and further recommended that costs be taxed to
respondent.

     Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
     Thomas Ewing Phillips, pro se.

     Per Curiam. We concur in the finding and recommendations
of the board. Thomas Ewing Phillips is hereby suspended from
the practice of law for one year, with the suspension stayed,
and respondent is placed on two years' probation under the
following conditions: (1) respondent's practice and law office
management shall be monitored for the next two years by an
attorney appointed by relator, (2) respondent shall attend
twelve hours of continuing legal education in law office
management to be completed in addition to the twenty-four hours
of continuing legal education he is required to complete
between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 1996, (3) respondent
shall forthwith enter into a contract with the Ohio Lawyers
Assistance Program and shall abide by its terms and conditions
for a minimum of the next two years, and (4) no disciplinary
complaints against respondent are certified to the board by a
probable cause panel within the next two years. Costs taxed to
respondent.
                                    Judgment accordingly.
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright and Resnick,
JJ., concur.
     F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent and would publicly
reprimand respondent.