Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. DeVillers

Citation: 2007-Ohio-5552

Docket Number: 20071148

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-10-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. DeVillers, 116 Ohio St.3d 33, 2007-Ohio-5552.] 
 
 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. DEVILLERS. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. DeVillers, 116 Ohio St.3d 33, 2007-Ohio-
5552.] 
Attorneys at law — Multiple violations of Disciplinary Rules — Two-year 
suspension. 
(No. 2007-1148 – Submitted August 14, 2007 – Decided October 24, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-054. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Sean Patrick DeVillers of Lexington, Kentucky, 
Attorney Registration No. 0066963, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1996.  The 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
suspend respondent’s license to practice law for a period of two years, followed 
by a two-year probationary period with conditions, based on findings that he 
committed several disciplinary violations.  On review, we adopt the board’s 
findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
{¶ 2} On November 13, 2006, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a 
seven-count amended complaint charging respondent with several violations of 
the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent stipulated to the violations 
of the Disciplinary Rules in each count.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline held a hearing on the complaint in April 2007.  
Based on the stipulations and other evidence, the panel made findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and a recommendation, which the board adopted. 
Stipulated Facts 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Count I 
{¶ 3} In 1999, respondent drafted a will for Marjorie Holland that named 
her brother, John Holland, the primary heir of the estate.  The deed to the house in 
which Marjorie lived was in her and John’s names as joint tenants with rights of 
survivorship.  Marjorie died in 2001. 
{¶ 4} Respondent, who was the executor of Marjorie’s estate, filed the 
estate inventory but failed to properly research the real estate title and did not 
realize that the property was not an estate asset, because it had passed to John 
upon Marjorie’s death.  Believing the real estate to be an estate asset, respondent 
sold the property in August 2001 to the listing real estate agent for $115,000 less a 
six percent commission.  The property had an appraised value of $168,000, and 
the real estate agent resold the property two years later for $216,000. 
{¶ 5} In addition, respondent failed to list as an estate asset a $23,922 
mortgage that John had executed on the property in 1991.  Respondent signed a 
release of the mortgage without determining whether John had ever repaid the 
money he owed from the 1991 mortgage. 
{¶ 6} Respondent subsequently paid 50 percent of the real estate 
proceeds to Marjorie’s estate and 50 percent to John.  Yet respondent failed to pay 
Marjorie’s funeral expenses on time, causing late fees of $1,211 to be added to the 
bill.  Respondent also paid the funeral bill from his personal account rather than 
the estate account. 
Count II 
{¶ 7} John Holland lived in a nursing home before and after the death of 
his sister, Marjorie.  In June 2001, John signed a power of attorney giving 
respondent authority to manage his financial affairs, including payment of bills 
relating to his comfort and well-being. 
{¶ 8} In October 2002, respondent opened an account for John and 
deposited $52,268, John’s 50 percent share of the real estate sale described in 
January Term, 2007 
3 
Count I, and $29,962 from Marjorie’s estate.  However, on numerous occasions, 
respondent failed to pay for medical and pharmaceutical services provided to 
John, causing certain service providers to threaten to terminate services.  
Respondent also failed to pay John’s nursing home expenses on time and did not 
timely respond to the nursing home’s attempts to contact him.  John revoked the 
power of attorney in January 2004. 
Count III 
{¶ 9} In 1998 or 1999, respondent assumed responsibility for probating 
the estate of Margaret Dickerson, which included National City Bank common 
stock and an interest in the National City Bank Dividend Reinvestment Program.  
Respondent failed to list stock dividends from the dividend-reinvestment program 
in the account and did not distribute them at the closing of the estate.  In fact, the 
dividend-reinvestment program remained open for four years after the estate was 
closed.  In addition, after Dickerson’s death, respondent took possession of 11 
pension checks written to Dickerson but neglected to deposit them or ask to have 
them reissued. 
Count IV 
{¶ 10} Respondent left the law firm of Christensen, Christensen & 
DeVillers in December 2003.  Respondent continued to represent clients but 
failed to disclose that he no longer carried malpractice insurance and failed to 
have the clients sign the notice required by DR 1-104(A). 
Count V 
{¶ 11} In 2004, the Franklin County Probate Court appointed Douglas 
Wrightsel as a master commissioner to review five estate matters then being 
handled by respondent.  Wrightsel’s report concluded that there was delay, 
neglect, and missing paperwork.  Respondent was able to complete the work on 
these estates with Wrightsel’s direction and help. 
Count VI 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 12} Respondent did not maintain a trust account or a separate business 
account.  Instead, respondent used his personal account for business and 
nonbusiness purposes, including the payment of client court costs.  Respondent 
also did not keep an accounting of client funds deposited into his personal 
account. 
{¶ 13} While working with Christensen, Christensen & DeVillers, 
respondent deposited $10,500 into the firm’s trust account on April 3, 2003, 
without recording which client the deposit related to.  In May 2003, respondent 
made two withdrawals totaling $10,500, also without notation.  When asked by 
firm members for details of the disbursements, respondent indicated that they 
were made to David Dorward and Baycliff Village Home Owners Association.  In 
reality, one check for $7,748.18 was made payable to Provident Bank and the 
other check for $2,751.82 was made payable to respondent. 
Count VII 
{¶ 14} Sometime around April 2004, respondent defended Steven and 
Donald Slivka in a lawsuit to collect on a loan.  Respondent entered an 
appearance and filed a motion for leave to file an answer.  This motion stated that 
respondent had requested and received an extension of time to file an answer.  
However, when he received a motion for default judgment, respondent discovered 
that the extension had not been journalized. 
{¶ 15} The case was scheduled for trial in July 2004.  After several 
continuances, the judge entered an order in January 2005 indicating that the case 
had been settled, based upon respondent’s representations to opposing counsel 
that respondent had the settlement money in his trust account.  However, 
respondent’s clients had not authorized any settlement. 
{¶ 16} As a result, the case was put back on the docket.  A pretrial 
conference was scheduled for August 2005.  Respondent had by then moved but 
had failed to provide the court with his new address. 
January Term, 2007 
5 
{¶ 17} In October 2005, respondent sent a proposed settlement agreement 
to opposing counsel, although according to Steven Slivka, respondent did not 
have authority to settle the lawsuit.  Nevertheless, the case was ultimately 
dismissed in December 2005 based upon representations of counsel that the 
parties had resolved their dispute. 
{¶ 18} In January or February 2006, respondent informed Steven Slivka 
that the Slivkas would likely have to pay some money.  Respondent said he would 
contact them later about the amount they needed to pay.  However, respondent 
never contacted the brothers.  In June 2006, Steven Slivka’s wages were 
garnished.  The sheriff also executed on the Slivkas’ property. 
Stipulated Misconduct 
{¶ 19} Respondent admitted, and the board found, that respondent had 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (forbidding engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct adversely 
reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 1-104(A) (requiring disclosure 
to clients that a lawyer does not carry professional-liability insurance), 6-
101(A)(1) (forbidding handling a legal matter that a lawyer is not competent to 
handle without associating with a lawyer who is competent to handle it), 6-
101(A)(3) (forbidding neglect of an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) 
(forbidding intentionally failing to seek a client’s lawful objectives), 7-101(A)(2) 
(forbidding intentionally failing to carry out an employment contract), 7-
101(A)(3) (forbidding intentionally prejudicing or damaging a client during the 
professional relationship), and 9-102(A), (B), and (E) (requiring preservation of 
the identity of funds and property of clients). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 20} In recommending a sanction, the board considered the aggravating 
and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶ 21} As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had 
engaged in a pattern of misconduct and that there were multiple offenses.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d).  In addition, respondent refused to acknowledge 
the wrongful nature of his misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g).  The board 
also noted the vulnerability of and resulting harm to the victims of respondent’s 
misconduct and respondent’s failure to make restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(h) and (i). 
{¶ 22} In mitigation, the board noted the absence of a prior disciplinary 
record, respondent’s cooperation in the disciplinary investigation, and his 
character and reputation.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (e). 
{¶ 23} Respondent testified that he was diagnosed with attention deficit 
disorder as a child.  Respondent explained that his disorder was not an excuse for 
his actions but that it did make it very difficult to stay focused and to address 
matters in a timely fashion.  Respondent further testified that after an Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program intervention to determine the cause of his problems, 
he was diagnosed with adult attention deficit disorder and general anxiety 
disorder and was under the care of a psychiatrist for a year. 
{¶ 24} Because respondent did not provide expert testimony on his 
condition, the board was unable to find that his attention deficit disorder caused or 
contributed to any of the charged misconduct.  The board did, however, recognize 
that respondent was diligent in accepting treatment and removing himself from 
the traditional law-firm environment by accepting employment as a financial 
analyst and in-house counsel. 
{¶ 25} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for two years and, if respondent is reinstated, that he serve a two-
year monitored probation under Gov.Bar R. V(9).  The panel also recommended 
January Term, 2007 
7 
that respondent reimburse the Client Security Fund for any amounts paid to 
respondent’s clients.  It also recommended as a condition of reinstatement that 
respondent present a written statement from a physician indicating that he is fit to 
practice law despite his prior diagnosis.  The board adopted the panel’s 
recommendation. 
Review 
{¶ 26} Respondent does not challenge the board’s findings of misconduct 
or the recommended sanction.  We have reviewed the board’s record and its 
report, and we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 1-
104(A), 6-101(A)(1), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), 7-101(A)(3), and 9-
102(A), (B), and (E).  We also agree that the board’s recommended sanction is 
appropriate.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law for two years, to be followed by a two-year period of monitored probation 
under the terms of Gov.Bar R. V(9) upon reinstatement.  Prior to reinstatement, 
respondent must present a written statement from a physician indicating that he is 
fit to practice law.  We also order that respondent reimburse the Client Security 
Fund for the amounts paid to respondent’s clients for any claims made in 
connection with the above misconduct.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Barbara J. Petrella, Bruce A. Campbell, and A. Alysha Clous; and Roetzel 
Andress, L.P.A., and Judith D. Levine, for relator. 
 
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., and Alvin E. Mathews Jr., for respondent. 
______________________