[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

.]




                     OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MAZER.
             [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Mazer, 

.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Six-month suspension with sanction stayed on
        conditions—Failure to maintain client funds in an identifiable bank
        account—Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—
        Representing a client knowing that his continued employment will result
        in a violation of a Disciplinary Rule—Accepting employment if the
        exercise of attorney’s professional judgment on behalf of client will be
        affected by attorney’s own financial, business, property, or personal
        interests.
       (No. 96-985—Submitted June 25, 1996—Decided August 28, 1996.)
    ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
                      Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-72.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} On January 24, 1996, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“relator”)
filed an amended complaint charging Bernard D. Mazer of Dublin, Ohio, Attorney

 (“respondent”), in one count with violating DR 9-
102(A)(failing to maintain client funds in an identifiable bank account) and 1-
102(A)(6) (conduct adversely reflecting upon his fitness to practice law) and in a
second count with violating DR 2-110(B)(2)(representing a client when he knows
or it is obvious that his continued employment will result in a violation of a
Disciplinary Rule) and 5-101(A) (accepting employment if the exercise of his
professional judgment on behalf of his client will be affected by his own financial,
business, property or personal interests).
        {¶ 2} A hearing was held before a panel of the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court “board” on January 26, 1996, at
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




which time the respondent stipulated to the following essential facts and presented
evidence in mitigation. In 1990, respondent established a legal office as a sole
practitioner and opened a client trust fund. In order to avoid collection of personal
taxes which he owed to the Internal Revenue Service as a result of a prior business
venture, respondent deposited both his personal and business funds in the trust
account from March 1991 until April 1992, and in 1993 and 1994 he paid personal
expenses from the trust account.
       {¶ 3} In March 1994 respondent represented Michael Kusserow, a majority
shareholder of Agency Management, Inc. (“AMI”), and Kusserow’s parents in a
personal injury action involving minor injuries to Kusserow and his mother and
substantial injuries to Kusserow’s father. In July 1994 respondent filed a Chapter
11 bankruptcy for AMI. AMI sought to employ respondent’s firm as its counsel in
the bankruptcy and respondent informed Kusserow that his firm was withdrawing
from the personal injury case in order to prevent the appearance of a conflict of
interest. On September 7, 1994, AMI filed an application for employment of
respondent’s law firm as attorneys for the debtor-in-possession in the bankruptcy
stating to the court that the firm no longer represented any principals of AMI.
Further, on or about this date, respondent sent a letter to Kusserow indicating that
his firm was withdrawing from representation in the personal injury matter.
However, after the application was filed and letter sent, respondent corresponded
once in October and once in November with the opposing party in the personal
injury action seeking to settle the matter, mentioning in the second letter that the
respondent’s firm was withdrawing from the representation of Kusserow.
       {¶ 4} The respondent stipulated and the panel found that respondent had
violated the Disciplinary Rules as charged. The respondent presented mitigating
evidence that he was regarded as a capable and honest lawyer. He testified that
while he was attempting to begin law practice as a sole practitioner, his wife was
seriously ill and that he deposited needed personal funds into his client trust account



                                          2
                                January Term, 1996




in order to prevent them from being attached by the IRS. However, he did not use
any client funds for his own expenses. Respondent pointed out that when he wrote
the letters regarding the Kusserow settlement subsequent to the bankruptcy filing,
he was still representing the parents of Kusserow. Respondent also presented
testimony that the bankruptcy judge who was hearing the AMI case was among the
few who would preclude an attorney from representing both a small closely held
company and its principal where there was no actual conflict of interest.
       {¶ 5} The panel recommended that the respondent be suspended from the
practice of law for six months with the suspension stayed on condition that
respondent pay in full all IRS liabilities arising from the underlying mattters, attend
a minimum of six hours of Continuing Legal Education classes dealing with law
office management in addition to his normal CLE obligation, and that he be put on
probation with the local bar association for a year or until the conditions are met,
whichever is longer.
       {¶ 6} The board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the
panel, but deleted from the terms of the probation any requirement regarding
payment to IRS.
                               __________________
       Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, Alvin Mathews and Stacy M.
Solochek, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
       Grady L. Pettigrew, Jr. and Laura Hauser Pfahl, for respondent.
                               __________________
       Per Curiam.
       {¶ 7} We adopt the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the board.
Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for six months with the
suspension stayed on condition that respondent attend a minimum of six hours of
Continuing Legal Education classes dealing with law office management in
addition to his normal CLE obligation, and that he be on probation with the local




                                          3
                               SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




bar association for a year or until the condition is met, whichever is longer. Costs
taxed to respondent.
                                                            Judgment accordingly.
          MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ.,
concur.
          STRATTON, J., not participating.
                                __________________




                                             4