Case Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Corbin

Citation: 2006-Ohio-2289

Docket Number: 20052022

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Corbin, 109 Ohio St.3d 241, 2006-Ohio-2289.] 
 
 
 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. CORBIN. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Corbin, 109 Ohio St.3d 241, 2006-Ohio-2289.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Entering into a business 
transaction with a client. 
(No. 2005-2022 — Submitted January 11, 2006 — Decided May 24, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-052. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Gregory J. Corbin of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0030426, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1985. 
{¶ 2} On October 11, 2004, relator, Dayton Bar Association, charged 
respondent with professional misconduct.  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause and considered the 
parties’ comprehensive stipulations.  The panel made findings of misconduct, 
which the board adopted, and a recommendation, which the board did not adopt. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The allegations of misconduct arose from respondent’s agreeing to 
buy two real estate properties from a client. 
{¶ 4} In December 2000 and January 2001, at a time when an attorney-
client relationship existed between them, respondent’s client offered to sell him 
two residential properties.  She told him that she desperately needed money and 
that her credit record prevented her from mortgaging the properties herself.  
Respondent accepted her explanation and agreed to purchase the two properties 
for $17,500. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 5} On January 5, 2001, the client executed quitclaim deeds, 
transferring to respondent her interest in a home on South Ardmore Avenue and 
in a home on Huron Avenue, both in Dayton.  At the time, respondent did not 
know that his client had been hospitalized for psychiatric treatment from 
December 27, 2000, until January 2, 2001, just before she entered this transaction.  
The client was hospitalized again, also without respondent’s knowledge, from 
January 18, 2001, until January 29, 2001. 
{¶ 6} Respondent and his client agreed that respondent would mortgage 
the properties and pay his client with the proceeds of the loans.  They did not 
commit their purchase agreement to writing, however, and respondent began to 
have second thoughts about the deal because he discovered some problems with 
the properties and he had lost contact with his client.  In March 2001, respondent 
learned that the client had recently been arrested and was incarcerated in 
Louisiana, facing charges of armed robbery, obstruction of official business, and 
felonious assault.  She was also still in financial distress. 
{¶ 7} Respondent ultimately decided to go through with the deal to help 
his client, who needed money to pay for legal representation in Louisiana and for 
other expenses.  The properties were single-family residences located in 
distressed neighborhoods and in need of substantial repair.  Respondent did not 
have either property appraised, but he did research the selling prices of real estate 
in the neighborhood of the Huron property, which ranged from $5,000 to $35,000.  
Respondent was unable to mortgage the Ardmore property because his client had 
secured a loan on that property before he had recorded his deed, and the property 
was sold for $6,000 in foreclosure to satisfy that lien. 
{¶ 8} In May 2001, respondent obtained a $34,000 mortgage loan on the 
Huron property; however, he did not immediately pay his client, who was still 
incarcerated in Louisiana, any proceeds of this loan or deposit the money in his 
January Term, 2006 
3 
trust account.  He instead deposited the funds in a personal checking account 
belonging to the “Corbin Family Companies.” 
{¶ 9} Respondent testified that he had kept receipts in his client’s case 
file for all of the money that he disbursed to her but when his client later asked for 
her file, respondent’s secretary gave it to the client without first making a copy.  
Unable to obtain the case file from his client, respondent was able to only 
partially reconstruct the payments he had made at his client’s request through 
bank copies of cashier’s checks and Western Union records of fund transfers.  
According to respondent, he paid his client or others at her direction an estimated 
$34,000, approximately all the money that he received from the May mortgage 
loan.  In August 2002, respondent refinanced the property for an additional 
$9,000. 
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated and the panel and board found that 
respondent violated DR 5-104(A) (prohibiting a lawyer from entering into a 
business transaction with his client if they have differing interests therein and if 
the client expects the lawyer to exercise his professional judgment for the 
protection of the client, unless the client has consented after full disclosure) and 9-
102(A) (requiring that a lawyer preserve client’s funds in a separate, identifiable 
bank account). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 11} In recommending a sanction for his misconduct, the panel 
considered respondent’s background and weighed the mitigating and aggravating 
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.”). 
{¶ 12} Prior to the events underlying his misconduct, respondent had a 
long and successful career in public employment.  After graduating from law 
school, he worked in the child-support-enforcement division of the Montgomery 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
County Prosecutor’s office until 1989.  He served as a magistrate in the 
Montgomery County Domestic Relations Court from 1989 through 1991.  He then 
returned to the prosecutor’s office, where he served as a senior attorney for the 
child-support-enforcement division until 1993.  During that time, the division 
improved its poor performance record and became one of the best in Ohio.  In 
1993, he was asked to join the Montgomery County Public Defender’s Office, 
managing a newly formed juvenile unit.  He took a medical leave from the office 
from 1997 through 1999 as a result of a year-long hospitalization for a debilitating 
disease, but was then able to return to the public defender’s office.  Respondent 
continues to suffer from serious health problems, however, and he has been on a 
medical leave since 2003 because of physical ailments and depression. 
{¶ 13} During his career, respondent has also practiced law privately 
when the professional and ethical demands of his public employment permitted.  
As a sole practitioner, respondent served an impoverished neighborhood in 
Dayton, where he would see clients weekday evenings and on weekends.  A 
tremendous need for legal assistance exists in that area, along with a dearth of 
lawyers. 
{¶ 14} As mitigating factors, the panel found that respondent had no prior 
record of disciplinary sanctions and had cooperated completely in the disciplinary 
proceedings.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  The panel also found 
respondent to be “painfully honest” when asked whether he had acted in his own 
interest by agreeing to purchase his client’s property.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(b).  Respondent explained: 
{¶ 15} “I would say initially when we were first dealing, probably yes.  
But before a loan was taken and after I had at that point decided to return the 
property to her, absolutely none.  But then that was before she was incarcerated.  
When she became incarcerated, everything changed * * * [b]ecause [then] she 
was desperately, desperately begging, pleading, I need this, I need the money.  
January Term, 2006 
5 
Otherwise I can’t get the representation I need.  The other thing I think happened 
here is I think I was tired.  I know this sounds stupid, but I was working all of 
these hours at the public defender’s office, and then I’m doing this other job and I 
think I was tired. 
{¶ 16} “And I think no matter how much you work, you should always be 
mindful of the Code of Ethics, be mindful of the best interests of your client.  And 
I think at some point my judgment – I made a very, very bad decision.” 
{¶ 17} The panel also found mitigating respondent’s explanation for why 
he had chosen to enter into this transaction with this needy client when he had 
never done so with any other.  Respondent explained that the client, an older 
woman with whom he had become acquainted through his children’s athletic 
activities, had often implored him for help, in tears.  He said he had been unable 
to resist her entreaties, and he accepted responsibility for his failings. 
{¶ 18} Respondent testified with fervent sincerity that he would “forever 
be ashamed” of his actions.  He acknowledged that he had “tarnished [his] name” 
and that in doing so he had seriously jeopardized his ability to represent the 
disadvantaged people he most wanted to help. 
{¶ 19} Also in mitigation, the panel considered affidavits from a 
Montgomery County juvenile court judge and a Dayton municipal court judge, 
both of whom had known respondent since 1985.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(e).  The juvenile court judge described respondent as an honest, ethical, 
hardworking, loyal, and dedicated advocate for his clients.  The municipal court 
judge extolled respondent’s abilities, noting that he had been solicited by public 
officials to fill various positions and had done so with great success.  The judge 
also commended respondent’s considerable contribution in the service of children. 
{¶ 20} As the single aggravating factor, the panel found that respondent’s 
misconduct had involved a particularly vulnerable client – an incarcerated, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
financially distressed person with psychological difficulties.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(h). 
{¶ 21} The parties stipulated that they believed that the appropriate 
sanction for respondent’s misconduct is a six-month suspension from the practice 
of law.  The panel recommended a six-month suspension, all stayed based on the 
strength of respondent’s mitigating evidence and the scarcity of aggravating 
factors.  The panel also cited Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hovey (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 
495, 678 N.E.2d 1369, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Baldwin (1996), 74 Ohio 
St.3d 592, 660 N.E.2d 1145, in which lawyers received a suspended six-month 
suspension and a public reprimand, respectively, for similar misconduct.  The 
panel explained: 
{¶ 22} “[T]he facts of this matter are * * * analogous to Hovey and 
Baldwin.  There was no evidence of deceit or misrepresentation by Respondent.  
There was no evidence that the client * * * suffered any resulting harm.  An 
actual suspension from the practice of law for Respondent would not serve to 
protect the public.  Respondent’s demeanor and sincerity at final hearing 
convinced this panel that this error was out of character for Respondent who 
appears to be a deeply religious person.  The panel is convinced it is highly 
unlikely that he will ever make such an error again.  It is probable that 
Respondent’s innate desire to help [his client] was the principal reason for his 
misguided decision to get involved in these real estate transactions. Respondent’s 
practice, both with the Montgomery County Public Defender’s Office and in his 
private practice provides critically needed legal services to an underserved 
population in Dayton.” 
{¶ 23} The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct.  But finding 
respondent’s motivation for engaging in the misconduct — helping his client — 
especially compelling, the board recommended that respondent be publicly 
reprimanded for his misconduct.  The parties do not object to this disposition. 
January Term, 2006 
7 
Review 
{¶ 24} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct.  Based on the 
panel’s and board’s reasoning, we also agree that a public reprimand is 
appropriate.  Respondent is therefore publicly reprimanded for his violations of 
DR 5-104(A) and 9-102(A). 
{¶ 25} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Douple, Beyoglides, Leve, Hansen, Claypool, Kovich & Lipowicz and 
Richard A.F. Lipowicz; and John M. Ruffolo, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
 
Leppla Associates and Gary J. Leppla, for respondent. 
______________________