I Hear A Symphony

One of the many features that I enjoy of the web page of the Ohio Supreme Court is the case summaries of matters scheduled for oral argument.

Here’s a summary of a bar discipline case scheduled for tomorrow.

Eichenberger has been a lawyer for 35 years – most of time in Reynoldsburg as a sole practitioner. Like all Ohio lawyers, he has an IOLTA trust account to hold client funds in escrow. In May 2013, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel received a notice that Eichenberger’s account was overdrawn. Eichenberger dismissed the overdraft as an unauthorized attempt to make a withdrawal from an account that was in the process of being closed. The disciplinary counsel tried several times to get Eichenberger to turn over copies of his bank statements around the time of the overdraft, and finally subpoenaed the bank for the records. According to the disciplinary counsel and the board, the records showed more than 200 instances of improper transactions in two years, including payments for Memorial Tournament badges and Columbus Symphony tickets.

His story

Eichenberger, who is representing himself, contends he did cooperate with requests for the bank records. In his brief to the Court, he denies intentionally altering the records, and calls the difference in his documents and the subpoenaed documents a “copying error.” He claims having his records subpoenaed without his knowledge violated his constitutional right to due process, and that the evidence proves that he wasn’t spending client funds for personal use.

The other side

The disciplinary counsel, which investigated and brought the misconduct charges to the board, writes in an answer to Eichenberger’s claims that there was “clear and convincing evidence” that he did violate professional conduct rules. Among the evidence presented: the checks and authorized withdrawals from his IOLTA account to pay personal and office expenses, account records that show years of mismanagement, and his “evasive and misleading” responses during the investigation.

On Eichenberger’s other objections, such as the “copy error,” the disciplinary counsel states damaging information was left out in the middle of a page he’d provided to investigators. As to the contention his rights were violated when bank records were subpoenaed without his knowledge, the disciplinary counsel points out board regulations do not require notice during the investigatory process. Further, the disciplinary counsel notes, he was warned in writing the records would be subpoenaed if he didn’t produce the documents.

The summary provides links to information about the case. (Mike Frisch)