Case Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Westfall

Citation: 2012-Ohio-5365

Docket Number: 2012-1003

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-11-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Westfall, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5365.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-5365 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. WESTFALL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Westfall,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5365.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple violations of Rules of Professional Conduct—
Failure to cooperate—Two-year suspension from practice of law, six 
months stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2012-1003—Submitted September 12, 2012—Decided November 21, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-063. 
__________________ 
MCGEE BROWN, J. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, James W. Westfall Jr. of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0029420, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1977.  
On November 11, 2011, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, filed an 
amended, seven-count complaint against Westfall charging him with violations of 
the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
on Grievances and Discipline conducted a hearing and heard testimony from 
several witnesses, including Westfall. 
{¶ 2} The panel found that Westfall violated the following rules: 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to reasonably consult with the client 
about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished), 
1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable 
with reasonable requests for information from the client), 1.9(a) (requiring a 
lawyer to obtain informed consent of a client before representing another in the 
same or a substantially related matter adversely affecting the client),1.16(d) 
(requiring a lawyer withdrawing from representation to take steps reasonably 
practicable to protect a client’s interest), 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly 
refund any unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment), 5.3(b) 
(requiring a lawyer to take reasonable efforts to ensure that a nonlawyer 
employee’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the 
lawyer), 7.1 (prohibiting a lawyer from using a false, misleading, or nonverifiable 
communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services), 8.1(b) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a 
disciplinary authority during an investigation), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 
and 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects 
on the lawyer's fitness to practice law), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a 
lawyer to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation).  The board agreed with all 
of the above findings by the panel, with the exception of the finding that Westfall 
had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.9(a), which the board found was not supported by 
clear and convincing evidence. 
{¶ 3} The panel recommended that Westfall be suspended from the 
practice of law for two years, with six months stayed on certain conditions.  The 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
board agreed with the panel’s findings and conclusions, but recommended a two-
year suspension with reinstatement contingent on the conditions named by the 
panel. 
{¶ 4} After reviewing the record, we adopt the board’s recommended 
sanction and suspend Westfall for two years, with reinstatement contingent on 
several conditions. 
Misconduct 
Count One: McCafferty Grievance 
{¶ 5} In late 2008, Westfall agreed to represent Diana S. McCafferty and 
her then husband, Michael J. McCafferty, in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, for fees and 
costs of $1,399.  Diana paid Westfall’s firm, Westfall Legal Services, L.P.A., a 
total of $700 from the parties’ joint account.  In July 2009, Westfall informed 
Diana and Michael that unless they either paid the balance of his fees or contacted 
his office to arrange a payment plan, he would deactivate their case. 
{¶ 6} In October 2009, Westfall sent Diana and Michael a letter stating 
that their file had been closed for failure to make agreed payments.  In December 
2009, Diana authorized payment to Westfall from the couple’s joint account for 
$500.  However, in early 2010, while the couple was divorcing, Westfall 
withdrew from his representation of Diana.  In February 2010, Westfall sent a 
letter addressed only to Michael indicating that because of the restraining orders 
in place, his firm would file the bankruptcy for Michael separately.  The letter 
stated that Westfall would charge additional costs and fees to file a separate case 
for Diana, but it did not indicate whether Diana had been notified.  Nor did the 
letter state whether Westfall had obtained Diana’s informed consent to continue to 
represent Michael and file an individual bankruptcy.  In April 2010, Diana 
requested from Westfall a refund of $700, which she asserted was her share of the 
money paid to him.  Westfall failed to refund any money to Diana. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 7} The panel found that Westfall’s conduct violated the following 
rules: Prof.Cond.R. 1.9(a), 1.16(d), and 1.16(e). 
Count Two: Gresham Grievance 
{¶ 8} In early 2010, Westfall sent Setsuko Gresham a letter soliciting her 
as a bankruptcy client.  The letter used the phrase “Attorneys at Law” in the 
letterhead, listed eight separate office locations for Westfall Legal Services in 
Cuyahoga and neighboring counties, and repeatedly used the word “we” when 
referring to the firm.  At that time, Westfall was the only lawyer affiliated with 
Westfall Legal Services. 
{¶ 9} Westfall agreed to represent Setsuko and her husband, Charles 
Gresham, and they paid the full amount of fees and costs.  In March 2010, the 
Greshams met with Westfall’s son, Jay Westfall, a nonlawyer employee of 
Westfall Legal Services.  Jay discussed with Charles a possible strategy to avoid 
forfeiting an anticipated tax refund to the bankruptcy trustee. 
{¶ 10} In July 2010, Westfall Legal Services informed the Greshams that 
their case had been deactivated for not providing information that had been 
requested from them and that additional fees would be required to reactivate the 
case.  On August 3, 2010, Charles contacted Westfall Legal Services and 
indicated that he had complied with all requests.  On August 5, 2010, Charles 
contacted Westfall Legal Services again and indicated to a staff member that he 
had complied with all requests.  Three days after that conversation, Charles spoke 
with Jay, and on August 9, 2010, the Greshams supplied additional information.  
The information was reviewed by a Westfall Legal Services staff member, who 
determined that additional information was needed.  On October 7, 2010, Setsuko 
sent Westfall a letter expressing concern that Westfall had not taken action on the 
Greshams’ bankruptcy when they had submitted all the information that had been 
requested.  Setsuko also requested that Westfall either issue a full refund of the 
payment or start the bankruptcy proceedings.  On October 18, 2010, Westfall 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
wrote to the Greshams, notifying them that their case had been closed since July 
2010 and that it would take additional fees and costs to reopen the case.  Westfall 
made no refund of the unearned fees and unspent costs, which, according to 
Westfall, totaled $399. 
{¶ 11} The panel found that Westfall had violated the following rules: 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.16(d), 1.16(e), and 7.1. 
Count Three: Pestyk Grievance 
{¶ 12} In 2009, Westfall agreed to represent John P. Pestyk in a Chapter 7 
bankruptcy.  Pestyk prepaid Westfall’s full fees and costs.  In May 2009, Westfall 
notified Pestyk that his case would be deactivated in 30 days if Pestyk did not 
provide additional information.  In response, Pestyk called Westfall to tell him 
that he wanted to put the case on hold because his wife was gravely ill.  She died 
in September, and in December 2009, Westfall sent Pestyk another 30-day 
deactivation notice.  Pestyk called Westfall Legal Services to say that he did not 
want to continue with the bankruptcy case and asked for his money back.  
Pestyk’s repeated calls seeking a refund were ignored for months.  Pestyk 
eventually filed a grievance with the relator in October 2010 and complained to 
the Better Business Bureau.  Shortly thereafter, Westfall sent Pestyk a letter with 
a check for $499, but Pestyk testified that he never received it. 
{¶ 13} The panel found that Westfall’s misconduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.16(e). 
Count Four: Mosier Grievance 
{¶ 14} In 2009, Westfall agreed to represent Reba Mosier in a Chapter 7 
bankruptcy.  Subsequently, her husband, Charles Mosier, joined the action. 
Westfall was paid costs and fees totaling $1,299.  The Mosiers missed two 
appointments with Westfall Legal Services staff in January and February 2010.  
Westfall sent the Mosiers two letters, one noting that further action on their case 
would be delayed until they scheduled another appointment and one stating that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
unless additional information was received within 14 days, the case would be 
deactivated, and reactivation would require additional fees.  After hearing no 
response from the Mosiers, Westfall Legal Services informed them that the case 
was closed. 
{¶ 15} Reba Mosier had symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, and Charles 
Mosier was bedridden and in home hospice care.  Consequently, Reba authorized 
her son, William Mosier, to communicate with Westfall about their case.  A staff 
member of Westfall Legal Services spoke with William about the case and 
requested that he obtain additional information from the Mosiers and provide it to 
Westfall.  Westfall Legal Services received additional information, but the 
information was incomplete.  In July 2010, William and Jay had a phone 
conversation about a pending foreclosure action against Reba and Charles Mosier.  
Jay recorded the conversation.  Westfall later testified that he was aware that Jay 
had recorded the phone call and that the recording had not been retained.  
Westfall also testified that he had listened to the recording, and it did not include a 
warning to William that the call was being recorded. 
{¶ 16} The panel found violations of the following rules: Prof.Cond.R. 
1.16(d), 1.16(e), and 5.3(b). 
Count Five: Failure to Supervise 
{¶ 17} Count Five alleged that Westfall failed to supervise his nonlawyer 
staff members, resulting in their unauthorized practice of law.  The panel was 
unable to find that the furnishing of general information to clients by nonlawyers 
in this case constituted unauthorized practice of law and recommended that all 
charges related to this count be dismissed. 
Count Six: Failure to Pay Withheld Taxes 
{¶ 18} In accord with his obligations as an employer, Westfall withheld 
federal income tax and other payroll taxes from his employees’ paychecks.  He 
failed, however, to remit these amounts, as well as his employer’s share, to the 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
Internal Revenue Service for certain portions of 2009, 2010, and 2011.  The panel 
found that this failure was a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and 8.4(h). 
Count Seven: Disciplinary Investigation 
{¶ 19} Westfall made a false statement to relator during the disciplinary 
investigation by claiming that he had timely filed all tax returns.  Westfall also 
failed to provide requested information relating to the withholding tax issue to 
investigators. The panel found that this conduct violated the following rules: 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b). 
Sanction 
{¶ 20} 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. 
{¶ 21} The panel found several aggravating factors:  Westfall’s acts of 
misconduct demonstrated a selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple 
offenses, some lack of cooperation during the disciplinary process, refusal to 
acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, harm to vulnerable clients, and 
failure to make restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), 
and (i). 
{¶ 22} Mitigating factors found by the panel include a lack of prior 
discipline, a cooperative attitude during the actual panel proceedings, evidence of 
good character and reputation, and imposition of other penalties in connection 
with Westfall’s tax problems.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), (e), and (f). 
{¶ 23} The panel recommended that Westfall be suspended from the 
practice of law for two years, with six months stayed on certain conditions, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
including (1) restitution of specified amounts to certain named grievants, (2) 
remission of all amounts owing to the federal government or proof of a payment 
agreement with the Internal Revenue Service with which Westfall shall remain in 
compliance throughout the stay, and (3) commission of no further disciplinary 
violations. 
{¶ 24} The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel, 
including the dismissal of Count Five for lack of evidence.  However, the board 
amended the panel’s suggested sanction, recommending instead that Westfall be 
suspended for two years with reinstatement conditioned on compliance with the 
conditions named by the panel. 
{¶ 25} We agree with the board and find that the sanction corresponds to 
those previously issued for similar conduct.  In Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. 
Gresley, 127 Ohio St.3d 430, 2010-Ohio-6208, 940 N.E.2d 945, the attorney 
accepted fees from ten clients, failed to perform the agreed legal work, and then 
failed to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.  We imposed a two-
year suspension with the final six months stayed on conditions. Id. at ¶ 27.  In 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ellis, 120 Ohio St.3d 89, 2008-Ohio-5278, 896 N.E.2d 
703, the attorney accepted fees from 18 clients.  He then proceeded to fail in his 
obligations to those clients in several ways.  He either abandoned or neglected 
their cases, engaged in acts of deceit, and failed to communicate with his clients 
on the progress of their cases.  He also failed to cooperate in the disciplinary 
investigation.  We suspended the attorney for two years, followed by a two-year 
probationary period with reinstatement contingent on certain conditions, including 
restitution.  Id. at ¶ 11-13.  Common to both cases was the attorney’s continuing 
deceit toward his clients.  Gresley at ¶ 17; Ellis at ¶ 7. 
{¶ 26} Westfall’s misconduct also involved the wrongful retention of 
funds in the form of payroll taxes withheld from employee wages over an almost 
two-year period.  He used this money for his own benefit.  By doing so, Westfall 
January Term, 2012 
9 
 
violated duties to the public and the legal profession. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Veneziano, 120 Ohio St.3d 451, 2008-Ohio-6789, 900 N.E.2d 185, ¶ 10. 
{¶ 27} Misconduct involving the failure to remit payroll taxes can warrant 
an indefinite suspension. See, e.g., Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bruner, 98 Ohio 
St.3d 312, 2003-Ohio-736, 784 N.E.2d 687.  However, the board found, and we 
agree, that Westfall’s conduct is similar to that in Northwest Ohio Bar Assn. v. 
Archer, 129 Ohio St.3d 204, 2011-Ohio-3142, 951 N.E.2d 78. In Archer, the 
attorney withheld payroll taxes from his employees’ wages for four years but 
failed to remit payment to the Internal Revenue Service.  We imposed a one-year 
suspension on the attorney.  We have also considered Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Large, 122 Ohio St.3d 35, 2009-Ohio-2022, 907 N.E.2d 1162.  In Large, the 
attorney failed to withhold any income taxes and Social Security contributions 
from his employees’ wages and failed to report his employees’ wages to the 
Internal Revenue Service for four years.  We imposed a one-year licenses 
suspension on the attorney. 
{¶ 28} As in Archer and Large, Westfall has shown evidence of good 
character and reputation.  He has no prior disciplinary record and is subject to 
other penalties in connection with his tax issues. 
{¶ 29} Having considered Westfall’s misconduct relating to his clients 
and his employees, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the sanctions 
imposed for comparable conduct, we adopt the board’s recommendation. 
Accordingly, we suspend Westfall from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, 
with reinstatement contingent on the following conditions.  Westfall must (a) 
make restitution as follows: $700 to Diana McCafferty, $399 to Charles and 
Setsuko Gresham, $499 to John Pestyk, and $599 to Reba L. Mosier, (b) pay the 
Internal Revenue Service all unpaid payroll taxes, interest, and penalty obligations 
owed up to the date of reinstatement or, alternatively, enter into, and comply with, 
an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service to pay all such obligations, (c) 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
provide evidence satisfactory to relator of his compliance with the aforementioned 
conditions, and (d) commit no further violations.  Costs are taxed to Westfall. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents and would impose a two-year suspension with 
one year stayed. 
___________________ 
 
Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P., Gregory J. Phillips, and Erika Imre Schindler, for 
relator. 
 
Laurence A. Turbow, L.P.A., Inc., and Laurence A. Turbow, for 
respondent. 
______________________