The Supreme Court of Ohio issued a disciplinary opinion Tuesday sanctioning Cincinnati attorney Darnell Maurice Wilson with a six-month suspension that is fully stayed contingent on meeting specific conditions. The court found Wilson guilty of multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in *Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilson* (Ohio 2026).
Wilson, who was admitted to the Ohio bar in 2017 and holds Attorney Registration No. 0096352, faced charges from disciplinary counsel in a December 2024 complaint. The case was submitted to the court on Sept. 16, 2025, following proceedings before the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court.
The court's per curiam opinion, joined by Justices DeWine, Wilkin, Hawkins, and Shanahan, detailed violations including lack of diligent representation, failure to communicate promptly with clients, trust-account mishandling, and failure to properly withdraw from representation to protect client interests. Chief Justice Kennedy concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justices Fischer and Huffman.
The disciplinary action stems from Wilson's handling of client matters that allegedly fell short of professional standards expected of Ohio attorneys. The violations encompass fundamental aspects of attorney-client relationships and fiduciary duties that form the cornerstone of legal practice.
Lack of diligent representation represents one of the core violations cited in the case. Under Ohio's Rules of Professional Conduct, attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing clients. This obligation requires lawyers to pursue matters on behalf of clients despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience, and to take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause.
The communication failures cited in Wilson's case relate to the fundamental duty attorneys have to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters. Professional conduct rules require lawyers to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information and to explain matters to clients to the extent reasonably necessary for clients to make informed decisions.
Trust-account mishandling represents one of the most serious categories of professional misconduct, as it directly implicates an attorney's fiduciary responsibilities. Ohio's professional conduct rules establish strict requirements for handling client funds and property, including maintaining separate accounts and providing detailed accounting procedures.
The failure to properly withdraw from representation represents another significant breach of professional obligations. When an attorney seeks to withdraw from representing a client, specific procedural requirements must be met to ensure the client's interests remain protected during the transition.
The Supreme Court's decision to impose a fully stayed suspension reflects the court's assessment that Wilson's violations, while serious, can be addressed through conditional supervision rather than active suspension from practice. Stayed suspensions typically include requirements such as continuing legal education, practice monitoring, or other rehabilitative measures designed to address the underlying conduct issues.
This disciplinary action continues the Ohio Supreme Court's pattern of holding attorneys accountable for professional conduct violations while considering individual circumstances in crafting appropriate sanctions. The court balances the need to protect the public and maintain professional standards against the goal of rehabilitating attorneys who can return to competent practice.
The case was heard by a modified panel of the Supreme Court, with Justice Kristy S. Wilkin of the Fourth District Court of Appeals sitting for Justice Brunner and Justice Mary Katherine Huffman of the Second District Court of Appeals sitting for Justice Deters. This arrangement reflects the court's procedures for handling cases when regular justices are unavailable or recused.
Professional conduct cases like Wilson's serve multiple purposes within Ohio's legal system. They provide accountability for attorney misconduct, offer guidance to the practicing bar about professional standards, and demonstrate the judiciary's commitment to maintaining public confidence in the legal profession.
The Board of Professional Conduct, which initially reviewed Wilson's case as No. 2024-043, plays a crucial role in Ohio's attorney disciplinary system. The board investigates complaints against attorneys and makes recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding appropriate sanctions.
For Wilson, the stayed suspension means he can continue practicing law while meeting the conditions imposed by the court. Failure to comply with these conditions could result in the activation of the suspension, effectively barring him from practice for the six-month period.
The case underscores the importance of maintaining proper client relationships, trust account management, and withdrawal procedures. These professional obligations exist to protect clients and preserve public trust in the legal system.
As the legal profession continues to evolve, disciplinary cases like this one provide important precedents for understanding how courts interpret and enforce professional conduct rules. The decision will be formally published in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets following any necessary revisions to the slip opinion.
Attorneys practicing in Ohio and elsewhere can use this case as a reminder of the serious consequences that can result from violations of basic professional duties, even when those violations do not rise to the level of criminal conduct or fraud.