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

Kafantaris, Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v.121 Ohio St.3d 287, 2009-Ohio-1389. Decided 4/1/2009.Case Summaries- 150In 2003, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one-year, with six- months stayedin Disciplinary Counsel v. Kafantaris, 99 Ohio St.3d 94, 2003-Ohio-2477. Count Two entails theearliest misconduct which arose from representation of a client that began before respondent‘s 2003suspension. The client (Williams) was injured in a car accident and died of apparently unrelated causesshortly before the claim was settled. The decedent‘s daughter hired respondent to assist in the decedent‘sestate. Respondent had the daughter sign a release and endorse the $25,000 settlement check.Respondent deposited the check in a client trust account, but did not disclose the proceeds to the probatecourt. Respondent misappropriated the funds for his own uses even while he was on suspension.Respondent was largely uncooperative in the disciplinary process. Despite relator‘s repeated requests, hefailed to provide account records for months ostensibly due in part the fact that he kept virtually nowritten records for at least some of the client trust accounts. Board found violations of DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 7-102(A)(3), 9-102(B)(3), and 9-102(B)(4). Count Three arosefrom conduct that occurred after the 2003 suspension. Pursuant to his suspension order he was ordered todo certain things. He signed an affidavit stating he had satisfied the requirements of the suspensionorder and filed; however, he had not complied with the terms of the order—he still retained the proceedsof the settlement and had not filed a notice of disqualification with the probate court. Board foundviolations of DR 1-102(A)(4), (5), and (6), and DR 7-102(A)(3). Count One arose from conduct thatoccurred after respondent was reinstated to the practice of law and is similar to the conduct in Count Two.Respondent represented a client (Heasley) in a domestic matter. Respondent received an $80,000 checkpayable to Heasley from a life insurance company. Heasley endorsed the check and respondent placedit into a client trust account. Over the next nine months he repeatedly converted the funds to his ownuse. He did not keep written records of the trust account and he delayed in providing the information torelator. Board found violations of DR 1-102(A)(5), 9-102(A)(2), and 9-102(B)(3) and (4). No mitigatingeffect was attributed to the testimony of numerous individuals (mostly family members) who stated hewas a good family man. In aggravation, there was prior discipline, dishonest or selfish motives, a patternof misconduct; lack of cooperation; and submission of false evidence or statements or other deceptivepractice during the disciplinary process. Board recommended a permanent disbarment. Respondent filedobjections to the Board‘s report, conceding the truthfulness of almost all the charges, but disagreeing withthe finding of dishonest or selfish motive, claiming it was contradicted because his clients (Heasley andWilliams) ultimately received their money back. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the Board‘sfindings, conclusions, and recommendation and so ordered a permanent disbarment. The court citedDixon (2002) which ―stated that misappropriation of client funds carried a ‗presumptive sanction ofdisbarment.‘‖ The court noted that respondent callously disregarded his client‘s interests and showeddisrespect for the judicial system as a whole by failing to disclose to the probate court Williams‘settlement proceeds, by failing to disclose to the probate court his disqualification after his suspensionorder, and by submitting to the Supreme Court of Ohio an affidavit containing lies and misrepresentation.Rules Violated: DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 7-102(A)(3), 9-102(A)(2), 9-102(B)(3), 9-102(B)(4)Aggravation: (a), (c), (d), (e), (f)Mitigation: NONEPrior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Disbarment