In re Resignation of Putman — Ohio Supreme Court accepted attorney’s resignation with disciplinary action pending

Case
In re Resignation of Putman
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Judge
Sharon L. Kennedy (elected 2012); Patrick F. Fischer (elected 2016); R. Patrick DeWine (appointment info not available); Joseph T. Deters (appointment info not available); Daniel R. Hawkins (appointment info not available); Megan E. Shanahan (appointment info not available)
Date Decided
August 14, 2026
Docket No.
2026-0816
Topics
Attorney Discipline, Resignation, Professional Responsibility
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Timothy Joseph Putman, an Ohio attorney admitted to practice in 1985, submitted an application for retirement or resignation under Gov.Bar R. VI(11). The application was referred to disciplinary counsel for review.

On June 29, 2026, the Office of Attorney Services filed disciplinary counsel’s report under seal. The court’s opinion does not describe the alleged misconduct underlying the disciplinary matter.

The Court’s Holding

The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted Putman’s resignation under Gov.Bar R. VI(11)(C) as a resignation with disciplinary action pending. Effective August 14, 2026, the court withdrew his right to practice law in Ohio and ordered his name stricken from the roll of attorneys.

The court prohibited Putman from practicing law, providing legal advice, or holding himself out as an attorney. It also imposed restrictions on any future work for attorneys or law firms and required him to surrender his admission certificate, protect the interests of current clients, return client property and unearned fees, account for trust property, notify affected parties and tribunals, reimburse qualifying Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection awards, and document his compliance.

Key Takeaways

  • Putman’s departure from the Ohio bar was accepted as a resignation with disciplinary action pending, not as an ordinary retirement or resignation.
  • The order immediately ended Putman’s authority to practice law or provide legal advice in Ohio and required removal of his name from the attorney roll.
  • The court required notice to clients, counsel, adverse parties, and tribunals, along with the return of client property and unearned fees and an affidavit proving compliance.

Why It Matters

A resignation with disciplinary action pending formally removes an attorney from practice while preserving the disciplinary character of the departure. Because disciplinary counsel’s report was sealed, the decision establishes the consequences of Putman’s resignation but does not disclose the misconduct that prompted the pending disciplinary action.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top