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

Parrish, Cleveland Bar Assn. v.
121 Ohio St.3d 610, 2009-Ohio-1969. Decided 5/5/2009.
Case Summaries- 244
Respondent was convicted of felony theft in July 2007 and received an interim felony suspension on October
23, 2007 in In re Parrish, 115 Ohio St. 3d 1434, 2007-Ohio-5636. Relator charged respondent in a 12-count
amended complaint pertaining to conduct in two matters. In the first matter, respondent was hired in May
2002 to represent Father Vincent O‘Dea in trust and estate matters. Father O‘Dea had already established
an inter vivos trust to provide funds to certain charitable organizations. Father O‘Dea directed respondent to
name Father James Ragnoni as his agent. Following Father O‘Dea‘s death in September 2002, Father Ragnoni,
acting as trustee, retained respondent as attorney for the estate and the trust which contained over $1.3
million. Respondent prepared and Father Ragnoni signed on March 5, 2004 a ―Letter of Authority‖ authorizing
a trust account to be established in the name of ―The Father Vincent O‘Dea Trust Account‖ which listed as
signatories Father Ragnoni and Attorney Parrish. Respondent, listing himself as trustee, opened a new account
named ―Father Vincent O‘Dea Trust‖ and transferred existing trust funds into the ―Father Vincent O‘Dea
Trust.‖ Beginning with a check on March 9, 2004, fifteen checks on the account were signed by and made
payable to Peter Parrish, totaling $96,685. He also electronically transferred $50,000 to his business
account in November 2004, and $25,436.85 to his attorney trust account in August 2005. He eventually
withdrew more than $172,000, not to pay for legal fees or other work for the trust but ―to maintain [the]
illusion‖ that he ―was still a successful sole practitioner.‖ Father Ragnoni, did not know of the
misappropriation, but discharged respondent as trust counsel, replaced him with Attorney Joyce Salisbury, and
requested the file. For a month and a half, Salisbury asked for the file repeatedly but he did not return the file.
On March 9, 2006, Salisbury filed a complaint for concealment. Salisbury told him that if he did not return
the file she would file a grievance. Respondent said he would deliver the file on March 13, but did not.
Salibury filed a grievance on March 15. Salisbury determined that at least $172,000 had bee
misappropriated. He pled guilty to third-degree felony theft, was sentenced to a four-year suspended sentence
with a 20 day jail term and was ordered to pay $250,000 in restitution. He did not carry professional-liability
insurance during the representation and did not inform either Father O‘Dea or Father Ragnoni of the fact.
As to the second matter, in October 2000, John and Debra Sabo hired respondent to defend them in a
dispute with a contractor. In May 2001, respondent filed an answer and counterclaim in response to a filing
by the contractor to foreclose under mechanic‘s lien on the Sabos‘ property. Respondent neglected the case
in at least three situations. He did not respond to the motion for summary judgment and a default judgment
was entered on the validity of the lien. After a motion to compel discovery was granted and the Sabos
timely provided responses to respondent, he did not provide them to opposing counsel. After receiving at least
five continuances, from May 2005 to April 2006, he failed to appear for a June 2006 pretrial conference,
resulting in dismissal of the counterclaim for failure to prosecute. Respondent did not inform the Sabos of his
failure to appear or the dismissal of the counterclaim. The Sabos discharged him and retained new counsel
who filed a motion for relief from judgment or reconsideration, but the motion was denied. Respondent did
not carry professional liability insurance and did not inform the Sabos. The board adopted the panel‘s finding
of violations of DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A), 2-106(A), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(3), 9-
102(B)(4). In aggravation, he acted with dishonest or selfish motive and misappropriated funds from the O‘Dea
trust repeatedly over a 22 month period; the victims were vulnerable and were harmed. BCGD Proc.Reg.
10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (h). In mitigation, he cooperated and there was no prior discipline. BCGD
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a),(d). Board rejected his contention that he acted under mental disability. BCGD
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). Board adopted the panel‘s recommendation of a permanent disbarment. The Supreme
Court of Ohio agreed with the Board‘s findings and recommended sanction and so ordered a permanent
disbarment.
Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A), 2-106(A), 6-101(A)(3), 7-
101(A)(3), 9-102(B)(4)
Aggravation: (b), (c), (d), (h)
Mitigation: (a), (d)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Disbarment