Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Young

Citation: 2007-Ohio-975

Docket Number: 20061261

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-03-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Young, 113 Ohio St.3d 36, 2007-Ohio-975.] 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. YOUNG. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Young, 113 Ohio St.3d 36, 2007-Ohio-975.] 
Attorney misconduct — Conduct that adversely reflects on lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law — Neglect of entrusted legal matter — Failure to properly 
account for client funds — Intentional failure to carry out contract for 
professional services — Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2006-1261 — Submitted November 15, 2006 — Decided March 21, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-054. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, James Cornell Young of Shaker Heights, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0034227, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1980.  On September 8, 1993, we suspended respondent’s license to practice for 
one year, but stayed the suspension in its entirety, and placed him on probation for 
two years.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Young (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 226, 617 N.E.2d 
669. 
{¶ 2} On February 19, 2002, after receiving notice that respondent had 
been convicted of a felony, we issued an interim suspension of respondent’s 
license pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4).  In re Young (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 
1473, 763 N.E.2d 181.  On April 28, 2004, we indefinitely suspended 
respondent’s license for his felonious conduct, which occurred in 2001 when he 
was involved in paying a witness to falsely exonerate his client of a drug-dealing 
charge, and for improprieties committed in a 1993 criminal case in which 
respondent solicited money from one or more defendants to guarantee that his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
client would not testify for the prosecution.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Young, 102 
Ohio St.3d 113, 2004-Ohio-1809, 807 N.E.2d 317. 
{¶ 3} On June 13, 2005, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged 
respondent with additional violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, 
alleging neglect and other misconduct in performing his duties as a guardian.  A 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the 
cause and made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation.  The 
board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct, but modified the recommended 
sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Respondent stipulated to charges that he had violated DR 1-
102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted 
legal matter), and 9-102(B)(3) (requiring a lawyer to properly account for client 
funds) while acting as guardian for Michael Gordon.  He denied that he had also 
violated DR 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to carry 
out a contract for professional services), and relator withdrew a remaining 
allegation that respondent had violated DR 7-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from prejudicing or damaging a client during representation). 
{¶ 5} The Cuyahoga County Probate Court appointed respondent to 
succeed another attorney as Gordon’s guardian in May 1992.  Two years before, 
the United States Department of Veterans Affairs had declared Gordon 
incompetent and awarded him benefits.  As guardian, respondent was responsible 
for arranging for Gordon’s medical care and using Gordon’s monthly benefit 
checks to pay his bills and purchase his living necessities. 
{¶ 6} Respondent opened a guardianship checking account for Gordon 
with Key Bank, making himself the only signatory on the account.  The probate 
January Term, 2007 
3 
court required respondent to file a biennial report accounting for Gordon’s 
finances. 
{¶ 7} LaTonya Jackson was respondent’s secretary from November 1989 
until February 2002, when respondent was placed on interim suspension from 
practicing law.  From the beginning of respondent’s appointment as Gordon’s 
guardian, Jackson assumed many of the tasks associated with the guardianship.  
She met with Gordon when he appeared, usually without an appointment, at 
respondent’s office.  She also usually purchased whatever necessities Gordon 
required. 
{¶ 8} In time, respondent became impatient with Gordon and felt 
burdened by the demands of being his guardian, so he delegated to Jackson all of 
the daily responsibilities of the guardianship.  At some point prior to 1996, 
respondent authorized Jackson to sign his name in carrying out these 
responsibilities.  Respondent was aware that Jackson was signing his name to 
checks on the Gordon guardianship checking account with Key Bank. 
{¶ 9} In January 1996, respondent decided to relinquish his role as 
guardian, and Jackson agreed to succeed him.  Although respondent drafted a 
motion to withdraw as Gordon’s guardian, he never signed the motion, he did not 
file it in probate court, and he never followed up to confirm the appointment of 
his successor.  Notwithstanding this, he later shrugged off Gordon’s complaints 
about Jackson, saying that Jackson was his guardian and that he was no longer 
responsible. 
{¶ 10} Jackson was never formally appointed respondent’s successor, but 
she acted as guardian by performing tasks under respondent’s name.  Jackson 
filed biennial reports with the probate court in respondent’s name and also signed 
respondent’s name to checks written on the guardianship account, and at some 
point, she even changed the address on the account so that statements no longer 
went to respondent’s office.  Eventually, she did not even inform respondent of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
probate court notices that were sent to him as guardian.  Jackson continued to 
handle the Gordon guardianship in this manner after respondent’s February 19, 
2002 suspension. 
{¶ 11} On December 5, 2002, the probate court removed respondent as 
Gordon’s guardian on its own motion for failure to file an account.  On March 20, 
2003, the probate court appointed attorney Gregory S. Thomas as the successor 
guardian for Gordon.  Thomas assumed control of the guardianship checking 
account and filed an inventory.  He also moved for a surcharge, seeking to have 
respondent and involved sureties held responsible for any financial deficiency in 
the guardianship estate. 
{¶ 12} Respondent learned of the surcharge motion from a court 
magistrate in the summer of 2003.  On August 3, 2003, Jackson executed an 
affidavit acknowledging that respondent had asked her to prepare a motion for his 
withdrawal as guardian, that she had acted as the custodian of Gordon’s funds, 
and that she had signed the checks on the guardianship account.  The surcharge 
action was later resolved by the parties, and pursuant to an agreed judgment entry, 
the probate court found that “the successor guardian’s services and expenditures 
for bond were necessary and proper to secure and safeguard assets due to the 
former fiduciary’s willful and wanton neglect.”  Under the terms of the parties’ 
agreement, the sureties paid the successor guardian for the benefit of his ward 
“$40,000 for which the former fiduciary failed to account” and $4,101.06 for the 
reasonable value of the services of the successor guardian, and a judgment was 
entered against respondent in favor of the sureties for $44,101.06.  Respondent 
has not even attempted to satisfy the judgment against him. 
{¶ 13} Respondent thereafter tried to recover damages from Jackson and 
Key Bank for Jackson’s allegedly embezzling and concealing assets, but his 
complaint was dismissed.  Respondent did not, however, disclaim during the 
disciplinary proceedings his own responsibility for the mistakes in the handling of 
January Term, 2007 
5 
the guardianship, readily admitting that he had not properly followed through on 
the motion to withdraw and that he had not adequately supervised Jackson. 
{¶ 14} Based on the stipulations, the panel and board found clear and 
convincing evidence that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 
and 9-102(B)(3).  Finding that respondent had also intentionally failed to carry 
out his contract of employment to serve as Gordon’s guardian, the panel and 
board also found a violation of DR 7-101(A)(2).  Adopting the panel’s report, the 
board explained: 
{¶ 15} “It is undisputed that Respondent was Gordon’s guardian.  It is 
also undisputed that despite that fact, Respondent did not want to serve as 
Gordon’s guardian so he passed the responsibility to his secretary.  He gave her 
permission to sign his name and never looked back.  Respondent testified that a 
motion to withdraw as guardian was prepared but never signed or filed.  When 
Gordon called Respondent to voice his concerns about the handling of his 
guardianship, Respondent told him it was not his problem.  Respondent never 
verified that he was no longer Gordon’s guardian or that his secretary was 
actually Gordon’s guardian.  We believe Respondent’s intentional failure to act as 
Gordon’s guardian and thus carry out the employment contract began when he 
gave his secretary control of the matter.  With each decision or lack of decision 
Respondent was acting intentionally. Respondent knew he had an employment 
contract to act as Gordon’s guardian and he intentionally failed to carry it out.  
Moreover, the Agreed Judgment Entry signed by Respondent and filed in probate 
court contains the following statement: ‘The Court further finds that the successor 
guardian’s services and expenditures for bond were necessary and proper to 
secure and safeguard assets due to the former fiduciary’s willful and wanton 
neglect, which necessitated the appointment of the successor administrator.’  We 
agree with the probate court’s assessment of Respondent’s behavior.” 
Recommended Sanction 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 16} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
panel and board weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors of respondent’s 
case, those that favor leniency and those that favor severity.  See 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.”). 
{¶ 17} The board accepted the panel’s findings of mitigation, the most 
persuasive of which are that respondent fully and freely disclosed the extent of his 
misconduct during the disciplinary process and that he presented evidence of his 
good character and reputation apart from the unethical conduct.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d) and (e).  As to character and reputation, a former Cuyahoga 
County Court of Common Pleas judge testified that respondent was an 
experienced criminal-defense lawyer whom he had come to know first in the 
courtroom and later through their mutual membership in Alcoholics Anonymous 
(“AA”).  Respondent had joined the judge’s AA group during the prior criminal 
and disciplinary proceedings against him, and Judge Pokorny testified that 
respondent has a “superior dedication” to the principles of AA.  The judge had no 
reservations about respondent’s returning to the practice of law. 
{¶ 18} A pastor at Mount Sinai Baptist Church in Cleveland with an anti-
substance-abuse ministry similarly testified about respondent’s good character 
and commitment to recovery.  The pastor is acquainted with respondent 
personally and professionally.  He advised that respondent has become an active 
leader in the church community and has enrolled in the seminary to become 
ordained, and that in the process, respondent has taken responsibility for his 
mistakes and come to grips with his past behavior. 
{¶ 19} A retired physician who met respondent in June 2001 through AA 
also testified.  The physician reported that he attends AA meetings with 
respondent two to three time per week and has witnessed a “tremendous 
psychological change” in him.  In the physician’s opinion, respondent’s zealous 
January Term, 2007 
7 
AA participation is not contrived and is generated by a “deep-seated motivation 
for an improved, useful, purposeful life.” 
{¶ 20} Respondent admits that he suffers from a chemical dependency on 
drugs and alcohol, and the misconduct at issue in this case occurred before he 
sought treatment for his dependency.  Respondent argued that his addictions 
should have mitigating effect pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).  This 
provision requires proof that (1) a qualified health-care professional or substance-
abuse counselor has diagnosed the lawyer’s chemical dependency, (2) the 
chemical dependency contributed to cause the misconduct, (3) the lawyer has 
experienced a sustained period of successful treatment, and (4) a qualified health-
care professional or substance-abuse counselor has concluded that the lawyer will 
be able to return, under specified conditions if necessary, to the competent, 
ethical, and professional practice of law. 
{¶ 21} Again based on the panel’s findings, the board was not convinced 
that respondent’s chemical dependency contributed to cause his misconduct.  
Although the associate director of the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program 
(“OLAP”) testified that a causal connection existed, the board relied on 
respondent’s testimony that he had authorized his secretary to manage the 
guardianship because he had not wanted to take on Gordon’s care in the first place 
and found Gordon’s many demands bothersome.  Respondent did not blame his 
alcohol and drug problems for abandoning his client.  Thus, although the panel 
and board commended respondent for his strides in managing his addiction, 
neither attributed mitigating effect to his chemical dependency. 
{¶ 22} With respect to aggravating features, the panel and board first 
recounted respondent’s extensive disciplinary record.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(a).  Moreover, although respondent did not profit financially from his 
misconduct, the panel and board concluded that his neglect of Gordon’s 
guardianship was self-centered in that he had cavalierly handed the job over to his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
secretary and ultimately could not account for $40,000.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(b).  Because respondent repeatedly allowed his secretary to act as 
guardian without supervision, which resulted in four violations of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility, the panel and board further found a pattern of 
misconduct and multiple offenses.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d).  
Finally, because respondent abandoned his incompetent client and has not 
reimbursed the sureties for the $44,101.06 they paid to the guardianship estate and 
the successor guardian, the panel and board determined that respondent had 
harmed a particularly vulnerable client and had not made restitution.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(h) and (i). 
{¶ 23} Relator proposed that respondent receive a one-year suspension to 
run consecutively to the indefinite suspension he is currently serving.  In part 
because the misconduct in this case occurred prior to or contemporaneously with 
the ethical improprieties for which he was placed on indefinite suspension, 
respondent proposed a two-year suspension to run concurrently with the earlier 
sanction. 
{¶ 24} The panel declined to recommend extending respondent’s sanction 
through a consecutive suspension, opting for a somewhat more lenient result.  The 
panel explained that respondent’s inattention to Gordon’s guardianship was less 
egregious than his deliberate attempts to obstruct justice and solicit bribes and that 
even with this serious misconduct, this court had not gone so far as to follow the 
board’s earlier recommendation to disbar.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Young, 102 
Ohio St.3d 113, 2004-Ohio-1809, 807 N.E.2d 317.  From this, the panel reasoned 
that we would have issued the same indefinite suspension even if the instant 
charges had been brought in the earlier case. 
{¶ 25} The panel recommended a two-year actual suspension of 
respondent’s license, to run concurrently with the existing indefinite suspension, 
with a conditional stay of any suspension period remaining if the existing 
January Term, 2007 
9 
indefinite suspension is terminated upon a petition for reinstatement.  As 
conditions for respondent’s reinstatement to the Ohio bar, the panel recommended 
that respondent be required to (1) show that he has successfully completed an 
OLAP-approved alcohol- and drug-abuse treatment program and that he can 
return to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law and (2) establish 
his compliance with a payment plan, approved by the OLAP monitor, for making 
restitution to the appropriate insurance companies.  Upon any reinstatement and 
as further conditions of the stay, the panel recommended that respondent be 
placed on probation for three years and be required to (1) continue treatment for 
his substance-abuse problem under the supervision of an OLAP monitor, (2) 
submit to testing as directed by the OLAP monitor to ensure sobriety, (3) report 
quarterly to his OLAP monitor on his treatment progress and his compliance with 
his payment plan, (4) follow the OLAP monitor’s recommendations as to 
appropriate case management, client communication, and financial responsibility 
in his practice, and (5) refrain from any further misconduct. 
{¶ 26} The board considered the panel report on June 8, 2006, and 
modified the recommendation, with the panel’s approval.  The board 
recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended, that the suspension run 
consecutively to the existing indefinite suspension, and that any reinstatement be 
subject to the conditions in the panel report. 
Review 
{¶ 27} Respondent does not object to the board’s findings of misconduct, 
and we agree that he violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2), and 9-
102(B)(3).  Part of a lawyer’s obligation to his client is to ensure that delegated 
legal duties are completed properly.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Ball (1993), 67 Ohio 
St.3d 401, 404, 618 N.E.2d 159.  Because respondent failed to supervise his 
secretary, disciplinary measures are warranted.  Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Lavelle, 107 Ohio St.3d 92, 2005-Ohio-5976, 836 N.E.2d 1214 (lawyer’s license 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
suspended for 18 months, with 12 months of suspension conditionally stayed, 
because he neglected a client's marriage-dissolution case, delayed three months in 
responding to disciplinary investigation, and failed to supervise nonlawyers in his 
law office, which resulted in nonlawyers’ falsifying documents). 
{¶ 28} Respondent objects to the recommended sanction, arguing that a 
consecutive indefinite suspension is unwarranted for the acts he committed at or 
around the time of the misconduct for which his license is now under indefinite 
suspension.  He further argues that his chemical dependency did contribute to 
cause his misconduct, that the misconduct did not harm a vulnerable victim, 
because Gordon received compensation for all the money that was lost and 
therefore only the sureties have been harmed, and that he should not be penalized 
for being unable to make restitution.  We overrule respondent’s objections and 
agree that a second consecutive indefinite suspension, with conditions for 
reinstatement, is appropriate. 
{¶ 29} We first reject respondent’s assertions that the panel and board had 
no clear and convincing evidence for the findings relative to mitigating and 
aggravating factors.  Both the panel and board relied on respondent’s testimony to 
find that disinterest, rather than addiction, caused him to neglect Gordon’s 
guardianship.  Both found that respondent’s inattention significantly harmed a 
vulnerable client in that the guardianship estate lost $40,000, notwithstanding that 
the loss was ultimately repaid by sureties.  Finally, both found from respondent’s 
admitted failure to repay any of the loss that he had failed to make any restitution.  
These findings are based on credibility determinations or other evidentiary 
inferences, determinations to which we normally defer, Dayton Bar Assn. v. 
Suarez, 97 Ohio St.3d 235, 2002-Ohio-5935, 778 N.E.2d 569, ¶ 10, and we accept 
them. 
{¶ 30} We also reject respondent’s argument that when relatively 
contemporaneous ethical infractions are prosecuted separately and suspensions 
January Term, 2007 
11 
are ordered in both cases, the sanction in the second case should necessarily run 
concurrently with the first. 
{¶ 31} Respondent cites Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Jaynes (1993), 66 
Ohio St.3d 245, 611 N.E.2d 807, in which we followed the board’s 
recommendation and ordered an indefinite suspension to be served concurrently 
with an earlier indefinite suspension.  Nothing requires this result, however, 
because, as we recently said in Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Marosan, 109 Ohio 
St.3d 439, 2006-Ohio-2816, 848 N.E.2d 837, each case of charged misconduct is 
an independent action.  This means that the sanction imposed in each case must 
be justified based on the ethical duties violated, the actual or potential injury 
caused, the attorney's mental state, the existence of aggravating or mitigating 
circumstances, and sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Bowman, 110 Ohio St.3d 480, 2006-Ohio-4333, 854 N.E.2d 480, ¶ 20; 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Beeler, 105 Ohio St.3d 188, 2005-Ohio-1143, 824 N.E.2d 
78, ¶ 25. 
{¶ 32} Consecutive suspensions serve to ensure a lawyer’s rehabilitation 
and thereby protect the public from additional misconduct.  Thus, in Marosan, 
when the lawyer had already violated conditions of a partially stayed two-year 
suspension, leading us to revoke the stay, we ordered him, in a second 
disciplinary proceeding, to serve a six-month suspension at the end of the two-
year period.  2006-Ohio-2816, 109 Ohio St.3d 439, 848 N.E.2d 837.  Similarly, 
we ordered a second indefinite suspension to be served consecutively in 
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. King, 109 Ohio St.3d 95, 2006-Ohio-1932, 846 
N.E.2d 37, because of the serious nature of the misconduct. 
{¶ 33} Respondent has not failed to comply with our previous indefinite 
suspension order or his treatment regime; however, the misconduct involved in 
this case is serious and gives further indication that respondent presents a 
considerable threat to the public and cannot be permitted to return too soon to the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
practice of law.  The combination of respondent’s abandonment of his duties to 
his incompetent ward and the significance of his prior disciplinary record, which 
includes acts so egregious that the board recommended that he be disbarred, far 
outweigh the evidence of good character and cooperation.  The board was thus 
justified in recommending a sanction that further delays respondent’s possible 
return to the practice of law. 
{¶ 34} Respondent is therefore indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio, and this indefinite suspension shall run consecutively to the 
indefinite suspension that respondent is currently serving.  In addition to the 
requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(10), respondent must in any petition he files for 
reinstatement (1) show that he has successfully completed an OLAP-approved 
alcohol- and drug-abuse treatment program and that he can return to the 
competent, ethical, and professional practice of law and (2) establish his 
compliance with a payment plan, approved by the OLAP monitor, for making 
$44,101.06 in restitution to the appropriate insurance companies.  If respondent is 
reinstated, he shall be placed on probation for three years and be required to (1) 
continue treatment for his substance-abuse problem under the supervision of an 
OLAP monitor, (2) submit to testing as directed by the OLAP monitor to ensure 
sobriety, (3) report quarterly to the OLAP monitor on his treatment progress and 
his compliance with his payment plan, (4) follow the OLAP monitor’s 
recommendations as to appropriate case management, client communication, and 
financial responsibility in his practice, and (5) refrain from any further 
misconduct.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., ROGERS, PFEIFER, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, 
JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. 
January Term, 2007 
13 
 
RICHARD M. ROGERS, J., of the Third Appellate District, was assigned to 
sit for RESNICK, J., whose term ended on January 1, 2007. 
 
CUPP, J., whose term began on January 2, 2007, did not participate in the 
consideration or decision of this case. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
{¶ 35} I concur in the majority’s opinion and judgment, except that I 
would run the indefinite suspension concurrently with respondent’s current 
suspension, as I do not believe that the infraction, which was committed during 
the same time period as his previous misconduct, warrants the more severe 
sanction of consecutive time. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Brian E. Shinn, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Murman & Associates and Michael E. Murman, for respondent. 
______________________