Case Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Crossmock

Citation: 2006-Ohio-5706

Docket Number: 20061148

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-11-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Crossmock, 111 Ohio St.3d 278, 2006-Ohio-5706.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. CROSSMOCK. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Crossmock, 111 Ohio St.3d 278, 2006-Ohio-5706.] 
Attorneys – Misconduct – Multiple disciplinary violations – Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2006-1148 — Submitted August 8, 2006 — Decided November 15, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-068. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Steven Lynn Crossmock of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0041947, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1989. 
{¶ 2} On August 8, 2005, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with professional misconduct.  Respondent filed 
an answer to the complaint, and a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline held a hearing on the complaint in May 2006.  The 
panel then prepared written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 
recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 3} Between 1993 and 2003, respondent converted for his own use 
some funds that belonged to his law firm.  His actions violated the agreements 
that he had made with his firm for dividing fees from judgments and settlements 
in the firm’s personal-injury cases.  Respondent deposited checks payable to the 
firm in his own escrow account, paid all amounts owed to the firm’s clients, and 
then converted the balance of the settlement or judgment proceeds for his own use 
rather than sharing that balance with his law firm as he had agreed to do.  The 
total amount of money belonging to the law firm that respondent converted for his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
own use appeared to exceed $300,000.  In 2003, respondent left the law firm and 
repaid the money that he had improperly taken. 
{¶ 4} Respondent admitted and the board found that his actions violated 
the following Disciplinary Rules: DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct 
that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Count II 
{¶ 5} Respondent represented Jan Fincher in a personal-injury matter 
between 1999 and 2003.  During the representation, respondent made roughly 40 
payments to Fincher directly or to others for her benefit.  Most of those payments 
were permissible advances to cover litigation-related or investigation-related 
expenses for Fincher’s case, but seven payments totaling more than $6,500 were 
not.  At least one of the seven improper payments covered a medical treatment for 
Fincher, and two others paid for health-insurance coverage on her behalf. 
{¶ 6} Respondent admitted and the board found that his actions violated 
DR 5-103(B) (prohibiting a lawyer from providing financial assistance or 
advancing funds to a client for expenses other than litigation costs). 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  As 
aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had acted with a dishonest or 
selfish motive and had engaged in a pattern of misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(b) and (c). 
{¶ 8} Mitigating factors identified by the board were the absence of any 
prior disciplinary record, respondent’s timely and good-faith effort to provide 
restitution to his law firm, and his cooperative attitude during the disciplinary 
January Term, 2006 
3 
proceedings.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (d).  The board also noted 
that respondent did not harm any clients or misappropriate any client funds.  In 
addition, respondent testified that he has sought and received mental-health 
treatment for a bipolar disorder since 2003, and he presented letters from a 
treating psychiatrist and clinical counselor supporting that testimony. 
{¶ 9} Relator and respondent both recommended that respondent be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  The panel and the board issued 
similar recommendations.  Respondent has filed no objections to the board’s 
findings or its recommendation. 
{¶ 10} We have reviewed the board’s report and the record, and we find 
that respondent violated all of the provisions as described above.  We also agree 
with the recommended sanction. 
{¶ 11} We have imposed indefinite suspensions in similar cases.  See, 
e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Yajko (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 385, 674 N.E.2d 684 
(attorney misappropriated funds from his law firm on multiple occasions over 
several years); Disciplinary Counsel v. Crowley (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 554, 634 
N.E.2d 1008 (attorney misappropriated funds from his law firm over several years 
by submitting fraudulent expense-reimbursement requests). 
{¶ 12} Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  If respondent petitions for reinstatement, he must (1) 
demonstrate that he has continued to receive treatment for his bipolar disorder as 
recommended by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other licensed health-care 
professional, (2) demonstrate that he has taken as directed all medications 
prescribed for him by a licensed health-care professional, and (3) be evaluated by 
a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other licensed mental-health professional within 60 
days prior to his petition for reinstatement and present a written report from that 
professional stating that respondent is able to return to the competent and ethical 
practice of law.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and O’CONNOR, 
JJ., concur. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents and would permanently disbar respondent. 
 
LANZINGER, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Vassar, Dills, Dawson & Bonfiglio, L.L.C., and Joseph P. Dawson; 
Robison, Curphey & O’Connell and Peter N. Lavalette, for relator. 
 
Kettlewell & Kettlewell, L.L.C., and Charles J. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
______________________