Case Title: Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Helbley

Citation: 2014-Ohio-5064

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-11-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Helbley, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5064.] 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-5064 
MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. HELBLEY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Helbley,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5064.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation and engaging in an illegal act that reflects adversely on 
the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness—Indefinite suspension with credit 
granted for time served under an interim felony suspension. 
(No. 2014-0200—Submitted April 8, 2014—Decided November 19, 2014.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2012-045. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, William Charles Helbley Jr. of Youngstown, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0041660, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1989.  On February 14, 2012, we suspended his license to practice on an interim 
basis pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4) upon receiving notice that he had been 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
convicted of a felony.  In re Helbley, 131 Ohio St.3d 1449, 2012-Ohio-553, 961 
N.E.2d 686.  We subsequently suspended his license for his failure to register as 
an attorney for the 2013-2015 biennium.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension 
of Helbley, 136 Ohio St.3d 1544, 2013-Ohio-4827, 996 N.E.2d 973. 
{¶ 2} Based on Helbley’s federal conviction for conspiring with others to 
commit wire fraud by inducing mortgage lenders to approve the purchase of 14 
properties at inflated prices, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline recommends that we indefinitely suspend him from the practice of law 
in Ohio and that we give him credit for the time served under his interim felony 
suspension.  Having considered Helbley’s misconduct, the aggravating and 
mitigating factors present, and the sanction we imposed on another attorney who 
had a comparable role in the same conspiracy, we adopt the board’s 
recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Helbley earned an undergraduate degree in industrial engineering in 
1975.  While working as an engineer, he attended graduate school and, in 1984, 
earned a Masters of Business Administration in finance.  He continued to work 
full time while he attended law school, which he completed in 1988.  He served as 
a corporate counsel from the time he was admitted to the bar until 2000, when he 
decided to go into private practice. 
{¶ 4} In 2003, Helbley opened a licensed title company.  Helbley testified 
that in 2004, a client introduced him to Romero Minor, who held himself out as a 
pastor and real estate broker. 
{¶ 5} In August 2010, Helbley was indicted on federal charges for 
conspiring with Minor and others to commit wire fraud as part of a mortgage 
fraud scheme designed by Minor.  Minor induced straw buyers or investors with 
good credit to purchase residential properties to be held in their names, which he 
would then rent to individuals who were unable to obtain mortgage loans.  Minor 
January Term, 2014 
 
3
advised the straw buyers that he would locate a tenant, collect the rent, pay the 
mortgage and taxes, and maintain the properties.  He offered to pay the straw 
buyers $5,000 for closing on the properties, with the understanding that after 12 
months, the property would be refinanced in the name of the tenant. 
{¶ 6} From May 2004 through May 2005, Minor solicited Helbley to serve 
as the title agent for 14 of the properties that were located in the Youngstown 
area.  Minor obtained appraisal reports that falsely inflated the value of the 
properties in order to obtain fraudulent mortgage loans.  At Minor’s direction, 
Helbley prepared the necessary HUD-1 settlement statements for the straw buyers 
to obtain loans to finance the purchase of the 14 properties.  Those settlement 
statements made it appear to lenders that cash distributions to Minor of the excess 
loan proceeds were for legitimate services and improvements to the property 
when they were not.  In his plea agreement, Helbley admitted he knew that the 
appraisals were fraudulently inflated and that Minor had no legitimate reason to 
receive the funds. 
{¶ 7} At the panel hearing, Helbley testified that he first suspected 
something was amiss when one of the straw buyers, who was also one of Minor’s 
parishioners, came to his office months after the closing on her property and 
stated that she wanted Minor to buy the property from her.  He asked to see 
Minor’s broker’s license, which Minor never produced.  Helbley nonetheless 
closed another two or three transactions before he quit doing business with Minor. 
{¶ 8} On April 12, 2011, Helbley entered into a plea agreement with the 
United States Attorney’s Office in which he admitted to one count of conspiring 
with Minor and others to commit wire fraud through the mortgage-fraud scheme 
designed by Minor. 
{¶ 9} On January 12, 2012, the United States District Court for the 
Northern District of Ohio found Helbley guilty of one count of conspiracy to 
commit wire fraud and dismissed the remaining counts of the indictment.  He was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
sentenced to a three-year term of probation and ordered to perform 50 hours of 
community service and to pay a special assessment of $100.  He was also ordered 
to make restitution of $381,827 jointly and severally with his coconspirators and 
to pay 10 percent of his net income each month toward that obligation.  It appears 
that he is in compliance with this criminal sanction.  Helbley reported his 
indictment to relator, and his license has been under an interim felony suspension 
since February 14, 2012. 
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated that Helbley’s conduct violates Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), but did not 
stipulate that his conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or 
trustworthiness).  The board, however, found that his participation in a conspiracy 
to commit wire fraud and his admission that he knowingly falsified settlement 
statements that resulted in a loss of approximately $382,000 to four lenders 
necessarily involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that his 
illegal acts therefore adversely reflected on his honesty and trustworthiness in 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and (c).  But, stating that the record does not 
support a finding that Helbley’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration of 
justice, the board recommends that we dismiss the alleged violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d). 
{¶ 11} We adopt the board’s findings of facts, find that Helbley’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and (c), and dismiss the alleged violation of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d).  We also note that relator’s complaint alleged violations of 
Prof.Cond.R. 4.1, 1.2(d), 1.16, and 8.4(h).  The parties, however, entered no 
stipulations regarding these alleged violations and did not mention them at the 
hearing.  Moreover, neither the panel nor the board addresses them in their 
January Term, 2014 
 
5
reports.  Therefore, we dismiss these alleged violations of Prof.Cond.R. 4.1, 
1.2(d), 1.16, and 8.4(h). 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} 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). 
{¶ 13} The parties have stipulated and the board has found that two 
aggravating factors are present:  Helbley engaged in multiple offenses based on 
the multiple predicates underlying his single criminal conviction, and he has 
failed to make full restitution, although he is working to do so in compliance with 
his criminal sentence.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d) and (i).  Mitigating 
factors stipulated by the parties and found by the board include (1) the absence of 
a prior disciplinary record,1 (2) the absence of a selfish motive (because Helbley 
received no compensation beyond his regular fees as a title agent), (3) a timely 
good-faith effort to make restitution, (4) Helbley’s full and free disclosure to the 
disciplinary authority and his cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, (5) his 
good character and reputation for truthfulness, competence, professionalism, and 
community involvement apart from the charged misconduct, and (6) the 
imposition of other penalties including the interim felony suspension and his 
criminal sentence.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). 
{¶ 14} Relator argued that the appropriate sanction for Helbley’s 
misconduct is an indefinite suspension from the practice of law, while Helbley 
                                                 
1 Although we have suspended Helbley’s license based on his failure to register for the 2013-2015 
biennium, this suspension has no aggravating effect given that he was already subject to our 
February 14, 2012 interim felony-suspension order.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
urged the board to recommend an 18-month suspension of his license.  Both 
parties, however, agreed that whatever sanction is imposed, Helbley should 
receive credit for the time served under the February 14, 2012 interim felony 
suspension. 
{¶ 15} The board found that the facts of this case are nearly identical to 
those of Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wagner, 137 Ohio St.3d 545, 2013-Ohio-
5087, 1 N.E.3d 398, and therefore recommends that we impose the identical 
sanction—an indefinite suspension with credit for time served under the interim 
felony suspension.  Neither party has objected to the board’s report. 
{¶ 16} Because we find that Helbley and Wagner played virtually identical 
roles in the same underlying conspiracy—each served as a title agent although 
they handled different real estate transactions in furtherance of the conspiracy—
and that each has been found to have violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and (c), with 
comparable aggravating and mitigating factors, we adopt the board’s 
recommended sanction. 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, we indefinitely suspend William Charles Helbley Jr. 
from the practice of law in Ohio and grant credit for the time that he has served 
under the February 14, 2012 interim felony suspension.  Costs are taxed to 
Helbley. 
Judgment accordingly. 
PFEIFER, LANZINGER, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL and KENNEDY, JJ., dissent and would 
not grant credit for time served under the interim suspension. 
______________________ 
David C. Comstock Jr. and Ronald E. Slipski, for relator. 
John J. Juhasz, for respondent. 
______________________