Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Heffter

Citation: 2003-Ohio-775

Docket Number: 20021778

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-03-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Heffter, 98 Ohio St.3d 320, 2003-Ohio-775.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HEFFTER. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Heffter, 98 Ohio St.3d 320, 2003-Ohio-775.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with entire suspension 
stayed on condition that no further misconduct be committed — 
Violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) — Engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Notarizing the 
signatures of minors outside their presence. 
(No. 2002-1778 — Submitted January 8, 2003 — Decided March 5, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-16. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On April 8, 2002, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging respondent, Sarah L. Heffter of Chardon, Ohio, Attorney Registration 
No. 0064791, with one count of misconduct in violation of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  Respondent answered, admitting to the allegations 
raised in the complaint, and the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”).1  
The panel adopted as its findings of fact and conclusions of law the following 
stipulations of the parties. 
{¶2} 
Respondent was retained by a client to probate an estate involving 
the distribution of real estate.  The interest in the property was divided among six 
                                                 
1. 
Subsequent to the appointment of the panel, it was discovered that one of the panel 
members resided in the same appellate district from which the complaint originated.  See Gov.Bar 
R. V(6)(D)(3).  At the suggestion of the Chair, counsel for the parties and the respondent agreed to 
submit the matter to the other two panel members for their recommendation to the board. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
heirs and transferred on December 10, 1997.  At the time of the transfer, two of 
the heirs were minors. 
{¶3} 
In August 1999, limited powers of attorney were drafted for the 
minor heirs that granted their mother, respondent’s client, a power to sign their 
names on a warranty deed and any other documents pertaining to the sale of the 
real estate.  Respondent did not draft the limited powers of attorney.  However, in 
an effort to speed up the sale of the property, and as a convenience to her client, 
on August 30, 1999, respondent notarized the limited powers of attorney of the 
minors without witnessing their signatures.  Respondent did not realize at that 
time that the principals involved were minor children, but she could have 
determined that they were under the age of majority had she reviewed her file of 
the probated estate.  The panel agreed with the parties’ stipulation that 
respondent’s conduct of notarizing the signatures of minors outside their presence 
constituted a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
{¶4} 
In accepting the parties’ stipulated sanction, the panel considered 
several mitigating factors, including the lack of a prior disciplinary record, 
respondent’s admission of the misconduct after receiving relator’s letter of 
inquiry, and her full cooperation in the disciplinary process.  In addition, the panel 
accepted the parties’ stipulation that alcohol or drugs were not involved.  Further, 
the panel agreed that respondent was not motivated by dishonesty or greed and 
noted that no person, including the two minor children, suffered any loss as a 
result of respondent’s misconduct.  Finally, letters were submitted testifying to 
respondent’s character and reputation. 
{¶5} 
Based on the stipulations and evidence, the panel accepted the 
parties’ stipulated sanction and recommended to the board that respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law for six months, with all six months stayed.  
January Term, 2003 
3 
The board agreed and adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and recommended sanction. 
{¶6} 
On review, we agree with the findings and conclusions of the 
board.  We have held in the past that an attorney who violates DR 1-102(A)(4) 
will be actually suspended from the practice of law for an appropriate period of 
time.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 
N.E.2d 237.  However, mitigating factors may warrant a lesser sanction in 
appropriate cases.  Dayton Bar Assn. v. Kinney (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 77, 78, 728 
N.E.2d 1052.  In view of the mitigating evidence submitted on behalf of 
respondent, we adopt the recommendation of the board. 
{¶7} 
Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law for six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the condition that 
respondent commit no further misconduct.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG 
STRATTON and O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Claudia S. Herrington, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Arter & Hadden, L.L.P., and Harry D. Cornett Jr., for respondent. 
__________________