The Supreme Court of Ohio today suspended a Columbus attorney for two years, with 18 months stayed, for mismanaging his client trust account.

A Supreme Court majority ruled that Sterling Gill II committed four violations of the ethics rules between 2020 and 2022. While his actions did not harm any of his clients, the Court noted the mismanagement occurred while he was on monitored probation following a prior suspension.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court found Gill did not maintain any ledgers to reflect who the money in his client trust account belonged to, although the account had balances ranging from $13,651 to $27,946 in 2021. The Court noted it has previously ruled that “mishandling of clients’ funds either by way of conversion, commingling, or just poor management, encompasses an area of the gravest concern.”

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Joseph T. Deters, and Daniel R. Hawkins joined the per curiam opinion. Justices R. Patrick DeWine and Megan E. Shanahan stated that they would impose a fully stayed two-year suspension as recommended by the Board of Professional Conduct. Justice Jennifer Brunner did not participate in the case.

Attorney Sanctioned for Fourth Time
In 1988, Gill was indefinitely suspended for misusing $4,700 in client funds. He was reinstated in 1990. In 2007, he was suspended for six weeks for failing to comply with his continuing legal education requirements.

In 2013, he was suspended for two years, with one year stayed, for committing several rule violations based on nine grievances. Many of the violations stemmed from his failure to have or use a client trust account. He was not reinstated to the practice of law until October 2019. At that time, he was placed on monitored probation for two years. His probation was terminated in January 2023.

In October 2024, the Office of  Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against Gill with the Board of Professional Conduct, alleging that he violated six ethics rules. Four of the violations related to the management of his client trust account.

Gill testified at his disciplinary hearing that up to 90% of his cases come from court-appointed work for which he does not use a client trust account. In August 2020, he deposited a $10,000 retainer check from Gerald Smith, one of a few clients paying for Gill’s work.

He deposited Smith’s check into his client trust account along with funds belonging to several other clients. He made several additional deposits in the following weeks, but testified he could not recall what the deposits were for. He admitted he did not keep a general ledger documenting account activity and did not keep ledgers for each client,  in violation of the ethics rules governing Ohio attorneys.

Gill paid costs of $1,015 on behalf of Smith and paid himself $3,850 from Smith’s $10,000 retainer. But for much of 2021, the account balance grew to as much as $27,946, and Gill could not explain at his hearing if the funds beyond what was left of Smith’s retainer belonged to him or others.

A panel of the board found Gill committed the client-trust-account violations, but dismissed two other charges. The panel recommended that Gill be suspended for two years, with the entire suspension stayed on the condition that he not commit further misconduct, and serve another two-year term of monitored probation. The board agreed with the recommendation.

Supreme Court Considered Sanction
When considering the board’s recommended sanction, the Court noted that Gill has three prior suspensions, including one for misusing client funds, and one for mishandling his client trust account, which is similar to the misconduct at issue in this case.

The Court considered sanctions imposed on other lawyers for the mismanagement of client trust accounts, and noted that attorneys who received stayed suspensions for their actions had not been previously sanctioned for engaging in similar misconduct.

In contrast, Gill has twice been sanctioned for similar behavior dating back to 1988, the opinion noted.

“Moreover, much of the misconduct at issue in this case occurred while Gill was serving a term of monitored probation as part of the sanction imposed for previous client-trust-account violations,” the Court stated.

The opinion stated that the prior suspension for his misconduct did not deter him from engaging in similar misconduct. The Court wrote that a more substantial sanction than a fully stayed suspension is necessary to “impart the seriousness of this misconduct to Gill.”

Along with the suspension, Gill must serve two years of monitored probation if he returns to practicing law and pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

2025-0483. Disciplinary Counsel v. Gill, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5392.

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, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.