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

Muntean, Disciplinary Counsel v.
127 Ohio St.3d 427, 2010-Ohio-6133. Decided 12/20/2010.
Case Summaries- 226
Respondent stole money from accounts he managed as the treasurer of the Summit County Court
Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) board. Respondent self-reported his misconduct after meeting in
May 2009 with law enforcement officers who were investigating the disappearance of money from the
CASA bank accounts that respondent maintained. In October 2009, respondent plead guilty to grand
theft, a fourth degree felony, received a six-month suspended jail sentence, which was contingent on
restitution to CASA. He received an interim felony suspension from the practice of law on January
1, 2010. In January 2008, respondent became treasurer of the CASA board. Only respondent could sign
CASA checks and use the CASA board‘s debit card. In September 2008, respondent began converting
funds from these accounts for personal expenses. In a few months he converted nearly $50,000. To hide
this behavior, respondent ignored CASA board members‘ requests for financial information. The records
were obtained by other means and his thefts were discovered. Board found violations of
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), (c), and (h). In aggravation, there was a dishonest and selfish motive, a pattern of
misconduct, and multiple offenses. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), and (d). In mitigation, respondent
made full restitution, had no prior disciplinary record, and cooperated. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c),
and (d). At the hearing, respondent admitted that he declared bankruptcy in 2004 and had always had
difficulty managing money. His law practice was never lucrative. He used CASA funds to buy
personal goods and impress his family and friends and mislead them into thinking he was doing better
than he actually was financially. Respondent accepted full responsibility for his actions, appreciated
the wrongfulness, and expressed remorse. The board report commented on his ―self-awareness and
commitment to move forward.‖ Respondent was diagnosed with mild depression and adhered to his
counseling and medication regime. He was employed. He was released early from community control
and was no longer under a court-ordered sanction. The board recommended an indefinite suspension.
The court noted that ―[u]nquestionably, respondent violated the public trust by stealing funds form an
organization that provides services for the most vulnerable members of the community.‖ In imposing a
sanction, the court was guided by Kelly (2009), a case in which an attorney received an indefinite
suspension for misappropriating a large amount of money from a charity on whose board she served. As
in Kelly, the court, ―believe[s] that respondent may eventually be able to establish the ability to practice
law both competently and ethically, and we decline to permanently foreclose that opportunity.‖ The
Court adopted the board‘s findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended sanction and so ordered
respondent be indefinitely suspended, with credit for time served under his interim felony suspension.
One justice concurred but would not give credit for time served.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(h)
Aggravation: (b), (c), (d)
Mitigation: (a), (c), (d)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: YES
Public Official: NO Sanction: Indefinite Suspension