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

Case Summaries- 159other assets in a trust account from which he was to disburse the assets to various taxing authorities.From 2005 to 2008, he failed to hold some of the funds in a trust account and failed to disburse funds tothe proper tax authorities as directed by the clients, leading them to believe he had held and disbursed thefunds. As a result, the company‘s worker‘s compensation premiums have increased, and the companyhad back taxes, penalties and fees in excess of $100,000. Respondent did not account for the funds,purloined some for his own purposes without informing the client, did not respond to clients‘ numerousphone calls, and was not at the office when they attempted to retrieve their documents. They filed acriminal complaint with the police. Board found violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) and (6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(3), 9-102(B)(4) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2), 1.15(a)(2) and (d), and 8.4(b), (c), and (h). In Count7, respondent held payroll and other assets for a second business owned by Client #4, for the purposeof disbursing the assets to various taxing authorities. From 2004 to 2008, respondent failed to holdsome of the funds in a trust account and failed to disburse funds to the proper tax authorities.Respondent also overstated the company‘s payroll obligations, and after making some legitimatepayments from the inflated amount retained the excess money which totaled more than $52,000. As aresult of the respondent‘s actions, this client has liability for $340,000 in back taxes, interest andpenalties. The respondent ignored the client‘s attempts to contact him, made no accounting, and failedto return documents. The client filed a criminal complaint. Respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and (6),6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-102(B)(4), and Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2), 1.15(a)(2) and (d), and 8.4(b),(c), and (h). In Count 8, respondent abandoned his law practice prior to October 2008; he stoppedchecking his mail, returning phone calls, and left a massive number of files and pile of unfiled documentsand correspondence, computers, copiers, law books, and personal effects. He gave his landlord a checkfor $1300 in past-due rent, which was returned for insufficient funds, and he promised to make good onthe check by October 2008, but did not. In January 2009, he paid the landlord to gains access to theoffice for a short period of time. When the time expired, he presented another check for access, but itwas returned for insufficient funds. Respondent has been locked out of his office since then, leavingclient files, unfiled court documents, correspondence, and office equipment. Respondent‘s registrationaddress is the abandoned office. Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2), 1.15(d), 8.4(b) and(h) and Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(D). In Count 9, respondent failed to respond to the disciplinary complaintsserved against him. Board found violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). Thefollowing factors were found in aggravation, pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), (e), (g), (h),(i): a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, harm to clients, a failure to make restitution,acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, or to cooperate in the disciplinary process. There wereno factors in mitigation. The primary purpose of discipline is to protect the public. Agopian (2006). Thepresumptive sanction for such repeated dishonesty and failure to cooperate is permanent disbarment.Jones (2006), Fernandez (2003), Weaver (2004), and Wherry (2000). Board recommended permanentdisbarment. The Court agreed, and so ordered.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(4), 1.7(b), 1.8(a), 1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2), 1.15(d), 8.1(b),8.4(b), 8.4(c), 8.4(h); DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(3), 2-110(A)(2), 9-102(B)(4); Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G)Aggravation: (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i)Mitigation: NONEPrior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: YESPublic Official: NO Sanction: Disbarment