Galena Attorney Suspended
2009-1544. Disciplinary Counsel v. Nicks, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-600.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 09-016. J. Michael Nicks, Attorney Registration No. 0073608, is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with 18 months stayed on conditions.
Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-600.pdf 
(Feb. 25, 2010) The Supreme Court of Ohio today suspended the license of attorney J. Michael Nicks of Galena for two years, with 18 months of that term stayed on conditions, for professional misconduct in his handling of probate matters entrusted to him by two different clients.
In a 7-0 per curiam decision, the Court adopted findings by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that Nicks improperly collected legal fees from a client without first obtaining approval of those fees by the probate court, caused financial harm to the same client by failing to timely forward a check he had received from the client to pay estate taxes, and failed to appear at a scheduled status conference or a subsequent show-cause hearing in another client’s case, resulting in a citation against Nicks for contempt of court.
The Court agreed with the disciplinary board’s conclusions that Nicks’ acts and omissions violated, among others, the state attorney discipline rules that prohibit conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney’s fitness to practice law; and failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
Contacts
Jonathan E. Coughlan, 614.461.0256, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
J. Michael Nicks, pro se, 740.965.2989.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."