disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Horan, Disciplinary Counsel v.
123 Ohio St.3d 60, 2009-Ohio-4177. Decided 8/27/2009.
Case Summaries- 129
Respondent received an attorney registration suspension in In re Attorney Registration Suspension, 116 Ohio
St.3d 1420, 2007-Ohio-6463. Respondent‘s whereabouts are unknown. She has been indicted on several felony
charges, she accepted payment form clients and failed to take action, failed to advise a client that she did not
maintain malpractice insurance, converted funds of a minor that she held in her capacity as guardian ad litem, and
failed to respond during relator‘s investigation. As to Count I, board found a violation of Rule 8.4(b) and
8.4(h) arising from her indictments by a county grand jury on 28 counts of tampering with records, one count of
forgery, and one count of grand theft for altering many fee applications to cover court-appointed work by replacing
other attorneys‘ names and addresses with Jeff Stone and her home address; she altered fee applications for her
services performed for indigent clients, by whiting out the reduced compensation granted by the court because
her application were filed late and replacing these with the originals amounts. As to Count II, the board found
a violation of Rule 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(a), 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar. R. V(4)(G) for accepting a retainer to
represent a client in a divorce action and filing a complaint, but not appearing at a scheduling conference, failing
to maintain any contact with the client or refund the money, and signing the check over to a relative instead of
depositing the funds into her IOLTA. As to Count III, the board found violations of Rule 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4),
1.15(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(h), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) for signing over a $10,000 retainer in a criminal matter to a
relative, not appearing for a preliminary hearing, although another attorney appeared on her behalf. The mother
of the criminal defendant hired a new attorney and she has not heard from respondent or received a refund. As to
Count IV, the board found violations of Rule 1.3, 1.4(a)(3),1.4(a)(4), 8.4(c), 8.4(h), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) for
accepting $1,00 to assist a client in reducing his child-support obligations due to a reduction in income, but taking
no action for the client, and telling the client he would have to wait because she could not file it immediately
because the court was too busy. The client was later found in default of the unreduced child-support order and had
his driver‘s license suspended and accrued child-support arrearage of approximately $4,000. As to Count V, the
board found violations of Rule 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 8.4(c), 8.4(h), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) for accepting
$5,280 to represent a couple as plaintiffs in a defamation case. Respondent defended a civil protection order and
wrote opposing party a letter requesting he refrain from slanderous comments, but then did not file a lawsuit,
and she falsely informed the clients a suit had been filed in Preble County, but that court was too busy and then
accepted additional fees to transfer the case to Butler County. As to Count VI, board found violations of Rule 1.3,
1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 8.4(c), 8.4(h), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) for accepting $3,000 to represent a client in a custody
matter but failing to appear at the custody hearing, after which the client attempted to contact her and learned she
had left the country, and failing to attend a traffic matter for which the client had retained her. As to Count VII, the
board found a violation of DR 1-104(A) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) for not responding to relator‘s inquiries and for
not informing a divorce client she did not maintain malpractice insurance during the original divorce action, then
when the client‘s legal malpractice against her settled for $500,000 it remains uncollected, in part because
respondent did not maintain malpractice insurance. As to Count VIII, board found violations of DR 9-102(B)(3),
9-102(B)(4), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) for not paying funds to a beneficiary on his 18th birthday as respondent
was supposed to do as guardian ad litem of the minor beneficiary‘s trust account and the beneficiary has been unable
to contact respondent or to locate the money. In aggravation, respondent took advantage of vulnerable clients,
including a teenage beneficiary, for monetary gain; there was a pattern of behavior, the misconduct resulted
in financial hardship for the clients and some had to obtain new counsel for services they had paid respondent to
perform; she took advantage of the indigent system and falsified documents to collect fees she did not earn;
converted funds of a minor and abused her fiduciary position; ignored the Board‘s attempts to contact her and fled
the country to avoid criminal charges. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h), (c), (b), (g), (i), (e). There was no mitigation
of which the Board was aware. Board recommended permanent disbarment. The court adopted the findings,
conclusions, and recommended sanction and so ordered a permanent disbarment.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.15(a), 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(h); DR 1-104(A), 9-
102(B)(3), 9-102(B)(4); Gov.Bar. R. V(4)(G)
Aggravation: (b), (c), (e), (g), (h), (i)
Mitigation: NONE
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Disbarment