Background
Warren Newton Morford Jr. (Attorney Registration No. 0038031), admitted to the Ohio bar on May 9, 1980, and based in Ironton, Ohio, submitted an application for retirement or resignation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VI(11). His application was referred to disciplinary counsel, and on May 19, 2026, the Office of Attorney Services filed disciplinary counsel’s report — under seal — with the Supreme Court of Ohio.
The procedural posture indicates that disciplinary action was pending against Morford at the time he sought to resign, triggering the specific resignation-with-discipline-pending framework under Gov.Bar R. VI(11)(C). The underlying misconduct was not described in the public order, as the disciplinary counsel’s report was filed under seal.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted Morford’s resignation as a resignation with disciplinary action pending under Gov.Bar R. VI(11)(C). The court immediately withdrew all rights and privileges to practice law in Ohio, ordered his name stricken from the roll of attorneys, and required him to surrender his certificate of admission within 30 days.
The court also imposed a comprehensive set of wind-down obligations to be completed within 30 days: notifying all current clients and co-counsel of the resignation and disqualification, returning client files and unearned fees, refunding trust funds, notifying opposing counsel and courts in pending litigation, and filing a compliance affidavit with the clerk and disciplinary counsel. Additionally, Morford was ordered to reimburse within 90 days any amounts awarded against him by the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, and to comply with the supervised-employment registration requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(23) if he later seeks work in a legal setting.
Key Takeaways
- The court accepted the resignation under the “with disciplinary action pending” designation — a distinct classification under Gov.Bar R. VI(11)(C) that differs from a routine retirement or voluntary resignation.
- Morford is permanently barred from practicing law in Ohio in any capacity — as principal, agent, clerk, or employee — and from giving legal opinions or advice.
- If Morford seeks future employment with any attorney or law firm, he must verify that the firm has complied with Gov.Bar R. V(23)(C) registration requirements, and he is barred from working for any firm with which he was associated at the time of the underlying misconduct.
- The decision was not unanimous: Chief Justice Kennedy dissented, Justice Fischer dissented on grounds consistent with his prior dissents in similar resignation cases, and Justice Brunner did not participate.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates Ohio’s procedural mechanism for handling attorneys who seek to exit the bar while misconduct investigations or proceedings are unresolved. Accepting a resignation “with disciplinary action pending” ensures the public record reflects that the departure was not a clean retirement, and it triggers the full suite of client-protection obligations designed to minimize harm to clients who may be in active matters.
The notable split — with two justices dissenting — signals ongoing disagreement on the Ohio Supreme Court about how these resignation-with-discipline cases should be handled, a debate Justice Fischer has flagged in a line of cases dating to at least 2020. Practitioners and bar oversight bodies should monitor whether the court revisits its standards in this area.