Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Terbeek

Citation: 2013-Ohio-1912

Docket Number: 2012-2056

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-05-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Terbeek, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1912.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-1912 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. TERBEEK. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Terbeek,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1912.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Misappropriation of funds from client trust account—
Permanent disbarment. 
(No. 2012-2056—Submitted February 6, 2013—Decided May 16, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-047. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jeffrey Lee Terbeek of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0033227, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1973. 
{¶ 2} In June 2012, a probable cause panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline certified a complaint filed by 
relator, disciplinary counsel, against Terbeek.  The complaint alleged that he had 
misappropriated funds that he was obligated to hold in escrow for the individual 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
who sold a business to his client, that he had admitted that he used those funds for 
personal purposes, and that he had failed to disclose his misappropriation in his 
response to a complaint for breach of contract filed by the seller. 
{¶ 3} Although the board caused relator’s complaint to be served on 
Terbeek by certified mail, he did not answer it or otherwise appear in this 
disciplinary proceeding.  Therefore, relator moved for default. 
{¶ 4} A master commissioner appointed by the board determined that the 
materials submitted in support of relator’s default motion were sufficient, found 
by clear and convincing evidence that Terbeek committed the charged 
misconduct, and recommended that he be permanently disbarred from the practice 
of law in Ohio.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s report in its 
entirety.  On December 19, 2012, this court issued an order to show cause why the 
court should not confirm the board’s recommendation and enter an order of 
discipline.  No objections have been filed. 
{¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and, having 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors present as well as the sanctions 
imposed for comparable misconduct, we agree that permanent disbarment is the 
appropriate sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 6} Terbeek represented Diep Nguyen Vo in the purchase of a tailoring 
business from Eugene Pearson in 1994.  Diep Nguyen Vo agreed to pay $15,000 
for the trade name, equipment, fixtures, and inventory of the business.  Because 
there were existing liens against the business, the agreement required Terbeek to 
hold the entire $15,000 purchase price in escrow until Pearson satisfied the liens. 
{¶ 7} Terbeek held the funds in escrow in his client trust account from 
approximately December 1994 until December 2001, when he began to withdraw 
the funds for his personal use.  He withdrew the majority of the funds in two 
checks issued to himself—the first for $2,500 on December 29, 2001, and the 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
second for $12,000 on May 17, 2002.  At an investigative deposition conducted 
prior to relator’s filing of the disciplinary complaint, Terbeek admitted that he 
withdrew the remaining $500 for his personal use, although he did not have 
records to document the transaction. 
{¶ 8} In a July 6, 2010 letter to Pearson’s counsel, Terbeek stated that 
although he could not recall the specific issues surrounding the sale of the 
tailoring business, he remembered that the funds were to be held in escrow until 
the outstanding tax lien was satisfied.  He also stated that the reason for holding 
the funds “seems to be still in effect.” 
{¶ 9} In November 2010, Pearson filed a breach-of-contract action 
against Terbeek and against a nonparty to the contract, Vuong Hai Vo, based on 
the failure to forward the purchase money to him.  It is not clear from the record 
why Pearson sued Vuong Hai Vo rather than Diep Nguyen Vo, who was the 
contracting party.  In his answer, Terbeek stated that he had withheld the funds 
pending the satisfaction of the liens, which had not yet been paid.  Although 
Pearson served two separate discovery requests and twice moved the court to 
compel discovery and to impose sanctions, Terbeek did not respond.  Neither 
Terbeek nor Vuong Hai Vo appeared at the pretrial hearing, at which the court 
granted Pearson’s motions to compel and set the matter for a sanctions hearing to 
be held on the same date as the trial. 
{¶ 10} When Terbeek and Vuong Hai Vo failed to appear at the trial, 
Pearson voluntarily dismissed the complaint against Vuong Hai Vo and the court 
entered a judgment against Terbeek for $15,000, plus interest, attorney fees of 
$2,500, and sanctions of $750.  Although Terbeek then failed to appear for a 
scheduled judgment-debtor examination, he did appear at a January 2012 show-
cause hearing, where he admitted that he had taken the funds held in escrow for 
his personal use.  Pearson averred that as of August 6, 2012, Terbeek had not paid 
any portion of the judgment. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 11} The board found that Terbeek’s conduct that occurred before 
February 1, 2007, violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging 
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and 9-102(A)(2) (requiring funds belonging in 
part to a client and in part to a lawyer, either presently or potentially, to be 
deposited in a client trust account and permitting the lawyer to withdraw the 
undisputed portion belonging to him or her).1  The board also found that his 
conduct on and after February 1, 2007, violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 (requiring a 
lawyer to hold funds belonging to a client or third party in a client trust account 
separate from his own property), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(d) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
{¶ 12} We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
                                                 
1 Because Terbeek’s misconduct occurred both before and after the adoption of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct on February 1, 2007, relator charged him under the applicable rules of both 
the former Code of Professional Responsibility and the current Rules of Professional Conduct.  To 
the extent that both the former and current rules are cited for the same acts, the allegations 
comprise a single continuing ethical violation.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 
330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 1, fn. 1. 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
{¶ 14} In this case, Terbeek misappropriated funds that he was obligated 
to hold in escrow for a third party and used them for personal purposes.  When 
confronted by that third party about the status of those funds, he advised that the 
condition precedent for their release had not been satisfied.  But while that 
statement may have been true, it also effectively concealed the fact that Terbeek 
had already misappropriated the funds.  In addition to this misappropriation and 
misrepresentation, Terbeek failed to provide requested discovery, failed to appear 
at scheduled court hearings, and failed to respond to the disciplinary complaint 
filed against him. 
{¶ 15} The board found that three of the aggravating factors identified in 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) are present—a dishonest or selfish motive, lack of 
cooperation in the disciplinary process, and the failure to make restitution.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (e), and (i).  The only evident mitigating factor is 
the absence of a prior disciplinary record.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a). 
{¶ 16} Recognizing that the misappropriation of client funds carries a 
“presumptive sanction of disbarment,” Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio 
St.3d 490, 2002-Ohio-2490, 769 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 15, and citing several cases in 
which we have imposed that ultimate sanction for comparable misappropriation 
offenses, the board recommends that we permanently disbar Terbeek.  See Greene 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Saunders, 132 Ohio St.3d 29, 2012-Ohio-1651, 968 N.E.2d 470 
(permanently disbarring an attorney who converted more than $40,000 that his 
client had entrusted to him to pay taxes due on her mother’s estate, neglected 
other client matters, and failed to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary 
investigation); Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Freeman, 128 Ohio St.3d 421, 
2011-Ohio-1483, 945 N.E.2d 1034 (permanently disbarring an attorney who 
misappropriated client funds, engaged in multiple instances of neglect, and failed 
to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation); Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Zumstein, 93 Ohio St.3d 544, 757 N.E.2d 327 (2001) (permanently disbarring an 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
attorney who misappropriated funds from the escrow account of a title agency, 
causing checks issued to the agency’s clients to be dishonored). 
{¶ 17} Terbeek did not object to the board’s recommendation.  After the 
deadline for filing objections had passed, however, he tendered his application for 
retirement or resignation to the Office of Attorney Services.  In re Retirement or 
Resignation of Terbeek, case No. 2013-0069.  We have stated:   
 
Gov.Bar R. VI(6)(C) permits lawyers who are the subject 
of disciplinary proceedings to resign from the practice of law with 
the designation “resigned with disciplinary action pending.”  This 
rule does not exist to allow lawyers to exhaust the participants and 
procedures of the disciplinary system in hope of ultimately evading 
the recommended sanction.  Lawyers resorting to resignation 
during disciplinary proceedings should therefore resign at the 
beginning of the proceedings.  This immediately removes the 
lawyer from the practice of law, thereby protecting the public and 
sparing the disciplinary process the time and expense of the 
proceedings.  Rarely will this court accept a resignation tendered at 
the end of the proceedings, when the benefit to the public and the 
disciplinary process no longer remains. 
 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Lentes, 120 Ohio St.3d 431, 2008-Ohio-6355, 900 N.E.2d 
167, ¶ 6, citing Akron Bar Assn. v. Holder, 112 Ohio St.3d 90, 2006-Ohio-6506, 
858 N.E.2d 356. 
{¶ 18} Terbeek waited until his disciplinary proceedings were almost 
complete before tendering his application for resignation.  At this late stage of the 
proceedings, the public will not benefit from his resignation.  Therefore, we find 
that he has forfeited his opportunity to resign.  See Lentes at ¶ 5.  And in the 
January Term, 2013 
7 
 
absence of mitigating evidence that would warrant a deviation from the 
presumptive sanction of permanent disbarment, we agree that this ultimate 
sanction is appropriate here. 
{¶ 19} Accordingly, Jeffrey Lee Terbeek is permanently disbarred from 
the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to Terbeek. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Heather Hissom 
Coglianese, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
________________________