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

Kimmins, Disciplinary Counsel v.
123 Ohio St.3d 207, 2009-Ohio-4943. Decided 9/24/2009.
Case Summaries- 160
Respondent advanced financial assistance to a client while representing him is pending litigation; retained
the client‘s property without disclosing the fact; misused the client‘s confidential information; made
misrepresentation to the client‘s family; and failed to maintain complete records and render appropriate
accounts to the client regarding his property. Respondent was admitted to practice in 1968. He
represented a client [Steiner] in a dispute related to the estate of his mother who died in August 2002.
Steiner had lived over 40 years in a house owned by his mother. He stored on the premises automotive
and commercial equipment and other items he intended to repair and sell to augment his income after
retirement. The house was deteriorated. The roof in the house had leaked and damaged the kitchen. The
plumbing had problems. He kept boxes of leftover chicken dinners and jars of applesauce in the
refrigerator. He stored piles of paper, tools, and equipment throughout the house. In March 2004, Steiner
told respondent that he had decided to retire from his job as a mechanic and he sought advice on his
financial situation while waiting for his pension payments. He had not requested a loan from
respondent, but he agreed to accept $5,000 from respondent to be deposited into a power-of-attorney
account for the purpose of paying bills and covering expenses of the pending case until the estate closed.
He executed a durable power of attorney appointing respondent his attorney-in-fact. Respondent opened
and paid Steiner‘s bills out of the power-of-attorney account that was jointly in respondent‘s and Steiner‘s
names. A week later, the dispute about the mother‘s estate was settled for $40,000, various bonds, and
title to the mother‘s house. Respondent retained $12,000 per contingent fee agreement. When
respondent called a man [Hawk] to explain that he had a client with a bum leg who recently retired and
to ask that Hawk pick up the tools, Steiner took the phone and said he did not need any help. In late
March, respondent and Steiner met for breakfast at a restaurant and Steiner admitted being depressed
over the settlement and the family discord and division. Respondent drove Steiner home, toured the
house, and persuaded Steiner to go with him to a hospital to have his depression and varicose veins
treated. The doctor diagnosed him with severe depression. Steiner voluntarily admitted himself to the
hospital. Even though respondent knew Steiner would not approve and had not executed the power of
attorney to remediate the property, respondent, who considered Steiner‘s property unfit for human
habitation, began using the power of attorney to clean up inside and outside the house. He hired Hawk to
sell the items collected outside the house. Respondent and others began sorting through items in the
house to determine what was garbage, what to move a storage unit, and what to leave in the house.
Respondent told Steiner‘s children of the father‘s hospitalization. He got their consent to the clean up by
telling them the doctor said Steiner was a threat to himself and others, that Steiner had financial
problems, that social services was involved, that the property was out of compliance with zoning; that
Steiner would not be able to return home if they did not remedy problems at the house. Steiner was
concerned that something was happening to his property and by April 2, 2004 asked his friend (Pappas)
to check. Pappas told Steiner that Hawk was hauling item off the property and scraping items that could
have been sold. Steiner now knew that respondent had begun using his power of attorney to clean up the
property. Steiner did not protest, revoke the power of attorney, or check himself out of the hospital. He
visited the property on April 5th. He said he feared that raising objections would result in his being
committed to a mental hospital. He admitted agreeing with the plan to clean up the property to sell it.
Steiner‘s son drafted a letter authorizing the clean-up, but reserved several items from the sale and
required respondent to maintain an inventory. Steiner went to Georgia with his son to stay until the clean
up was complete. The son became suspicious of respondent‘s description of his father‘s mental and
legal problems. The son testified that when he confronted respondent, respondent threatened him.
Steiner took the phone and questioned respondent about giving away so much of his property.
Respondent terminated the relationship. Respondent distributed the funds he received in settlement of
estate challenge and prepared two inventories accounting for much of the property. He had failed to
keep an accurate inventory of the property sold or discarded. He did not know whether all of the
household property from the inside either remained on the property or was in storage. He admitted that it
was impossible to keep track of Steiner‘s possessions, that not all the property had been returned, and that