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

Character, Disciplinary Counsel v.
129 Ohio St.3d 60, 2011-Ohio-2902. Decided 6/23/2011.
Case Summaries- 48
Respondent, on multiple occasions, did not inform her clients that she lacked professional liability
insurance, used a misleading firm name, failed to properly use a client trust account, charged excessive
fees, failed to adequately prepare to handle legal matters, and failed to cooperate in the disciplinary
process. Respondent has previously received a six- month stayed suspension in 1998, and an interim
felony suspension and attorney registration suspension in 2009. Respondent was originally charged with
over 20 counts, but after some dismissals and the bifurcation of Count 20, the panel eventually
found over 40 violations in 10 counts. In Count 1, respondent accepted a fee but did not deposit it into
her client trust account. In Count 4, respondent failed to appear at court hearings and was inadequately
prepared to handle the case. In Count 10, respondent represented a mentally challenged individual with
whom she had attained a position of trust. Respondent collected over $20,000 for handling a postdecree
and some real estate matters, even though the client, and not the respondent, did most of the work on
these issues. Respondent also induced the client to invest money into a company in which respondent
had a financial stake. In Count 12, respondent collected $23,000 to represent a student in a criminal
matter and the accompanying university suspension proceeding. Respondent did virtually nothing in
either matter, and advised her client to plead guilty to avoid any jail time. The client was given 6
months and not permitted to return to the university. Respondent was terminated but did not provide an
accounting of fees and expenses. In Count 13, respondent failed to attend 5 or 6 appointments to
discuss her disciplinary violation with a Bar Association, failed to attend 3 depositions, and was
uncooperative or completely disorganized when she did attend. Most requested records were not
promptly produced, if produced at all. In Count 15 and 16, respondent induced her client to invest in the
company, promising a big payoff in only 10 days. She failed to provide the client with a prospectus or
information about the investment properties. The client received less than $5000 of the $33,000 owed,
which respondent blamed on the market crash. Additionally, respondent was supposed to pay a
client‘s judgment lien with investment proceeds from the company. The check was returned for
insufficient funds, so the client paid the judgment. Respondent attempted to repay the client with a
check she signed using the company‘s owner‘s name, but that check too was drawn on insufficient funds.
In Count 17, respondent took money to represent a client, but never entered an appearance and
allowed a court-appointed attorney to represent the client. Respondent also presented motions to the
client‘s mother to evince work, but the motions were all prepared pro se, and the signatures on the
documents were not those of the client. Furthermore, they each contain a certificate of service for a date
that is not present on the court‘s docket. In Count 18, respondent falsely represented that she was
licensed to practice law in Georgia when she was not, and failed to oppose a motion for summary
judgment in a client‘s Ohio foreclosure proceeding. While the client saved her Ohio property from
foreclosure, he lost the Georgia property. In Count 19, respondent had a business associate wire money
to her parents back account as part of an investment agreement, and then failed to refund the money
when the investor was unable to secure the necessary additional financing. In many of the above
counts, respondent also used the firm name ―Character, Character & Associates‖ despite working by
herself, failed to inform her clients that she lacked professional liability insurance, and failed to
cooperate in the disciplinary investigation. Respondent objected to various rule violations, arguing they
were not supported by sufficient evidence. Upon the Court‘s review of the evidence, respondent was
found to have committed the following misconduct: in Count 1, DR 1-104(A)-(C) (failing to disclose
to the client that the lawyer lacks professional liability insurance), 1-102(A)(6) (conduct that adversely
reflects on the lawyer‘s fitness to practice law), 2-102(B) (practicing under a name that is misleading), 2-
102(C) (prohibiting a lawyer implying a partnership unless they are partners), 9-102(A) (holding clients
property separately), 9-102(A)(2) (requiring funds disputed funds to be deposited in a trust account),
and 9-102(E) (requiring funds of clients or third parties be placed in a trust account); in Count 4, 1-
102(A)(5) and (6), 6-101(A)(2) (handling a legal matter without adequate preparation) and (A)(3), and 2-
102(B) and (C); in Count 10, 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct involving moral turpitude) and (A)(4), 1-
102(A)(6), 1-104, 2-106(A) and (B) (clearly excessive fee), 5-104 (entering a business transaction