Case Title: Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. DePasquale

Citation: 1995-Ohio-271

Docket Number: 19951192

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-10-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
Stark County Bar Association v. DePasquale. 
[Cite as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. DePasquale (1995), _____ Ohio St.3d ____.] 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- One-year suspension stayed and attorney 
placed on two-year probation on conditions -- Neglect of an entrusted 
legal matter -- Failure to preserve identity of client’s funds -- Improper 
use of funds in an IOLTA. 
 
(No. 95-1192 -- Submitted July 26, 1995 -- Decided October 24, 1995.) 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the  
Supreme Court, No. 94-68. 
 
In an amended complaint filed on January 30, 1995, relator, Stark County 
Bar Association, charged respondent, David F. DePasquale of Canton, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0039607, with two counts of professional misconduct 
involving violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of entrusted legal matter) and 9-
102 (failure to preserve identity of client’s funds).  Two members of a panel 
appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”) heard the matter on April 17, 1995, at which time the 
parties consented to a third panel member’s review of the transcript and exhibits, 
and relator withdrew the allegations in the second count of the complaint, as 
amended. 
 
The parties stipulated to the facts underlying the charged misconduct as 
follows: 
 
“1.  In April, 1993, [respondent] was retained by Arnold Mathess and Willie 
F. McCrae to provide legal services in connection with an agreed sale of the 
residence of McCrae on Bollinger Avenue, Canton, Ohio.  Mr. McCrae’s wife had 
died in 1988 and the real estate was in her name. 
 
“2.  [Respondent] agreed to represent the parties and provide legal services 
including filing probate court documents, issuing clear title to the property, and 
preparing and filing the Deed conveying the property to Mathess. 
 
“3.  Upon researching the property, [respondent] discovered several 
creditors’ liens for medical bills and a tax delinquency lien. 
 
“4.  [Respondent] notified the parties of these liens and the fact that the liens 
totalled more than the Ten Thousand Dollar ($10,000.00) agreed * * * [upon] 
purchase price. 
 
“5.  [Respondent] received authority from his clients and successfully 
negotiated the medical creditors’ liens to approximately one-half (1/2) their value. 
 
“6.  On April 23, 1993, [respondent] received from the Buyer, Mathess, the 
Ten Thousand Dollar ($10,000.00) purchase price. 
 
“7.  The Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) was placed in an IOLTA Trust 
Account entitled ‘David F. Pasquale [sic], Atty., IOLTA Trust Account.’ 
 
“8.  Various monies were disbursed from the Trust Account during this 
period, including a check to Seller McCrae for One Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-
Five and 50/100 Dollars ($1,455.50), and attorney fees to [respondent] for One 
Thousand Seven Hundred Five and 50/100 ($1,705.50). 
 
“9.  Check No. 2185 in the amount of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) 
was made payable to [respondent] from the IOLTA Trust Account on April 27, 
1993.  There is no explanation for this disbursement * * *. 
 
“10.  A settlement statement was prepared by [respondent] on or about April 
23, 1993 and given to the parties * * *.  That statement shows disbursements to 
creditors.  McCrae was told that receipts showing payments to creditors would be 
sent. 
 
“11.  McCrae moved to Alabama and applied for credit in approximately 
June, 1993.  The creditors’ liens shown on the settlement statement appeared on 
his credit report.  McCrae also received a bill for real estate taxes showing that the 
purchased property was still in his name. 
 
“12.  McCrae contacted [respondent] who told him that the bill for real 
estate taxes was a ‘mistake,’ that [respondent] had not received the receipts from 
the creditors yet, [and that respondent] would send them to McCrae. 
 
“13.  McCrae continued to apply for credit and the liens continued to appear 
on his credit report. 
 
“14.  McCrae filed a grievance with [relator] by letter dated March 10, 1994. 
 
“15.  Thereafter, a Certificate of Transfer and Entry Relieving the Estate 
from Administration was filed in the Stark County Probate Court by [respondent] 
* * *. 
 
“16.  A review of documents indicates that disbursements of the Ten 
Thousand Dollar ($10,000.00) purchase price were made for medical liens as 
follows: 
 
Creditor 
 
 
Amount 
 
Date 
William Emley, Esq. 
Aultman Hospital  
 
$3,500.00     
 2/1/94 
David J. Lundgren, Esq. 
North Canton Medical Clinic 
    485.30 
 
2/25/94 
Dale Kincaid, Esq. 
Radiology Associates 
 
  1,010.00 
 
5/16/94 
John Botti, M.D.  
 
     987.25 
 
5/16/94.” 
 
In testifying before the panel, respondent acknowledged that he had failed 
to promptly pay the medical creditors for McCrae and to promptly transfer the 
purchased property to Mathess.  Respondent also admitted that he improperly used 
for his own benefit part of the funds placed in his trust account.  Accordingly, the 
panel found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 9-102, as alleged by 
relator. 
 
In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel considered 
respondent’s genuine expression of remorse, that he had paid some of the McCrae 
creditors’ claims and completed the real estate transfer before he learned of the 
instant grievance, that he had since paid the other medical claims, and that he had 
cooperated fully in relator’s investigation.  The panel also considered that 
respondent had been experiencing financial difficulties during the events at issue 
and that he had made sincere efforts to recover therefrom, including his attendance 
at several management seminars and his recent professional association with his 
wife, also an attorney.  Finally, the panel considered the testimony of two Stark 
County attorneys, a Stark County Municipal Court Judge, and respondent’s father, 
another  Stark County attorney -- all of whom attested to respondent’s integrity 
and competence.  The panel was particularly impressed with respondent’s father’s 
description of how the allegations of misconduct had affected his son. 
 
In Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Warren (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 334, 612 N.E.2d 
1223, the court imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of law for 
commingling and other disciplinary infractions, but stayed this sanction on 
conditions.  Finding this authority instructive, the panel recommended that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year, but that this 
supension period be suspended in favor of a two-year probation period on the 
conditions that respondent commit no further disciplinary violations and meet 
regularly with an attorney appointed by relator to supervise his compliance with 
the Disciplinary Rules.  The board adopted the panel’s findings and its 
recommendation. 
______________ 
 
Kathleen O. Tartarsky, for relator. 
 
David F. DePasquale, pro se. 
______________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Upon review of the record, we concur in the board’s findings 
of misconduct and its recommended sanction.  Respondent is, therefore, 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year; however, this suspension 
period is suspended and he is placed on a two-year probation period, provided that 
during this period no disciplinary complaints against respondent are certified to 
the board by a probable cause panel and that respondent meets regularly with an 
attorney appointed by relator to supervise his compliance with the Disciplinary 
Rules.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., WRIGHT and COOK, JJ., dissent. 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent.  Respondent’s breach of his 
client’s trust by loaning himself $3,000 from the client’s funds, then lying when 
questioned by the client, and still failing to conclude the transaction until the client 
filed a grievance, warrants a full one-year suspension from the privilege of 
practicing our profession. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and WRIGHT, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.