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

Case Summaries- 49
with a client if they have differing interests), and 5-105 (requiring refusal of employment if the interests
of another client may impair lawyer‘s judgment), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (cooperation with a
disciplinary investigation); in Count 12, DR 1-102(A)(5), 2-102(B) and (C), 2-106(A) and (B), 6-
101(A)(2) and (3), 7-101(A)(1)-(3), and 9-102(A); in Count 13, Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G); in Count 15, 1-
102(A)(4) and (6) and 7-101(A)(3); in Count 16, 1-102(A)(4) and (6), 5-104(A), and 7-101(A)(3); in
Count 17, Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring reasonable diligence), 1.4(c) (professional liability insurance),
1.5(a) (clearly excessive fee), 7.5(a) (practicing under a firm name containing names of lawyers not in
the firm), 7.5(d) (state or imply partnership only when it is a fact), 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(h) (conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer‘s fitness to
practice law); in Count 18, 1.4(c), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h); and in Count 19, 8.4(c) and 8.4(h). In reaching
these findings, the Court noted that the evidentiary requirements of Sebree (2004) do not apply when
the respondent appears and defends herself, and also noted that an attorney is held to the ethical rules
even for actions that do not pertain to her practicing law. Respondent also objected on three due
process grounds, namely that her case was prejudiced by: that her criminal prosecution and conviction,
her incarceration and inability to attend the hearings, and the use of a two-member panel instead of a
three-member panel. Based on the parties bifurcation of the count dealing with respondent‘s
incarceration, case precedent in Acker (1972) and In re Colburn (1987), and Gov.Bar R. V(6)(D)(3), the
Court overruled respondent‘s due process objections. In aggravation, respondent had a prior disciplinary
record, engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, refused to acknowledge the
wrongful nature of her conduct, caused harm to vulnerable clients, and failed to make restitution. BCGD
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (c), (d), (g), (h) and (i). The board found no mitigating factors, refusing to
accept respondent‘s incarceration as mitigation. Relator recommended disbarment. The panel
recommended an indefinite suspension, but the board recommended disbarment. Respondent objected
based on alleged procedural and evidentiary infirmities in relator‘s case. The Court, adopting the
board‘s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and relying on Mason (2008), Weaver (2004), and
Gueli (2008), accepted the board‘s recommended sanction and permanently disbarred the respondent.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(c), 1.5(a), 7.5(a), 7.5(d), 8.4(c), 8.4(h); DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-
102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 1-104(A), 1-104(B), 1-104(C), 2-102(B), 2-102(C), 2-106(A), 2-
106(B), 5-104, 5-105, 6-101(A)(2), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), 9-102(A), 9-
102(A)(2), 9-102(E); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)
Aggravation: (a), (c), (d), (g), (h), (i).
Mitigation: NONE
Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Disbarment