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

Citation: 2022-Ohio-3209

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2022-09-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Arkow, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3209.]  
 
 
 
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. 2022-OHIO-3209 
STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ARKOW. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Arkow, Slip Opinion No.  
2022-Ohio-3209.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—Two-
year suspension with one year stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2022-0716—Submitted July 12, 2022—Decided September 15, 2022.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2021-033. 
______________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Seth Walter Arkow, of Canton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0069103, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1998.  In 
December 2004, we suspended him for one year, stayed on conditions, based on 
findings that he neglected two client matters, intentionally failed to carry out a 
contract of employment, engaged in an improper ex parte communication in a third 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
client’s case, and failed to respond to a letter of inquiry regarding one of those 
matters.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Arkow, 104 Ohio St.3d 265, 2004-Ohio-6512, 819 
N.E.2d 284. 
{¶ 2} In a December 2021 complaint, relator, Stark County Bar 
Association, alleged that Arkow neglected two client matters, failed to reasonably 
communicate with those clients about the status of the matters, lied to one of those 
clients about the status of her matter, and made false statements of material fact to 
relator. 
{¶ 3} A three-member panel of the Board of Professional Conduct was 
appointed to hear the case.  The parties submitted stipulations of fact, misconduct, 
and aggravating and mitigating factors.  They recommended that Arkow be 
suspended from the practice of law for two years, with the second year 
conditionally stayed, and that he be required to serve one year of monitored 
probation.  Based on the stipulations and Arkow’s hearing testimony, the panel 
found that Arkow committed the charged misconduct.  The panel recommended 
that we impose the sanction suggested by the parties and that we place additional 
conditions on his reinstatement to the practice of law.  The board adopted the 
panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction.  The 
parties have jointly waived objections to the board’s report and recommendation. 
{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and recommended 
sanction. 
Stipulated Facts and Misconduct 
Count I—The Hall Matter 
{¶ 5} In March 2019, Karen R. Hall hired Arkow to represent her in her 
divorce.  That November, Hall paid Arkow an additional fee of $400 to obtain a 
qualified domestic relations order (“QDRO”) to divide her former husband’s 
retirement account.  The fee included the expense of hiring QDRO Group to prepare 
that order. 
January Term, 2022 
 
3 
{¶ 6} In April 2020, Arkow sent Hall an email stating that he had not heard 
anything about the QDRO and speculating that it had been delayed due to the 
COVID-19 pandemic.  That statement was false, however, because Arkow had 
never submitted Hall’s information to QDRO Group.  In response to Hall’s email 
inquiries about the status of her case in the following months, Arkow falsely 
assured Hall that he was checking the status of the QDRO every few weeks and 
that it was in process.  He claimed that QDRO Group was short-staffed as a result 
of the pandemic and that he would let her know when he received the document.  
However, Arkow did not respond to Hall’s subsequent inquiry about the status of 
the matter or her request for a copy of the documents he had purportedly furnished 
to QDRO Group. 
{¶ 7} In October 2020, Hall informed Arkow that she would be filing a 
grievance against him.  In response, Arkow sent her an email stating that he had 
submitted the documents to QDRO Group, that he had called the company from 
time to time to check on its progress, and that the company had indicated that it 
would get back to him shortly.  Those statements were false.  Shortly thereafter, 
Arkow wrote a $400 check from his client trust account to QDRO Group along 
with a letter to the company and backdated both documents to make it appear that 
he had written them nearly a year earlier.  After mailing the falsely dated documents 
to QDRO Group, he sent copies of the documents to Hall with the intent to mislead 
her about the timeliness of his actions.  In response to relator’s letter of inquiry, 
Arkow falsely asserted that he had timely submitted Hall’s payment and documents 
to QDRO Group. 
{¶ 8} In October 2021, relator deposed Arkow.  Before relator commenced 
its questioning, Arkow admitted for the first time that he had not timely transmitted 
Hall’s payment and documents to QDRO Group and that he had misrepresented his 
actions to both Hall and relator.  He then confirmed those actions under oath.  Hall 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
paid another attorney $300 to complete the filing, and Arkow reimbursed her for 
the cost of those services. 
{¶ 9} The parties stipulated and the board found that Arkow’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as 
soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client), 8.1(a) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact in 
connection with a disciplinary matter), and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  We 
adopt these findings of misconduct. 
Count II—The Kimble Matter 
{¶ 10} In March 2020, another of Arkow’s clients, Kayla Kimble, paid him 
$400 to finalize a QDRO.  But Arkow never submitted her paperwork to QDRO 
Group for processing.  Although Kimble inquired about the status of the QDRO 
several times over the next eight months, Arkow responded just once to falsely 
inform her, “Just got word, looks like they are catching up.  I should have something 
for you to sign next week.”  After Kimble filed a June 2021 grievance against 
Arkow and obtained new counsel to finalize the QDRO, Arkow refunded her $400 
payment.  The parties stipulated and the board found that this conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), and 8.4(c).  We adopt these findings of 
misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the attorney violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
January Term, 2022 
 
5 
{¶ 12} As aggravating factors, the parties and the board cited Arkow’s prior 
discipline, dishonest or selfish motive, pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, 
and submission of false evidence and false statements during the disciplinary 
process.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(1) through (4) and (6).  The board noted that 
although Arkow’s prior disciplinary case occurred 18 years earlier, it involved the 
same types of misconduct that are at issue here—neglect of a client’s QDRO 
coupled with misrepresentations about that conduct in the course of the ensuing 
disciplinary investigation. 
{¶ 13} As for mitigating factors, the board accepted the parties’ stipulations 
that Arkow had made timely restitution to Hall and Kimble, made full and free 
disclosure to the board, and submitted letters from a judge and two attorneys 
attesting to his good character.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(3), (4), and (5). 
{¶ 14} At his disciplinary hearing, Arkow testified that his first disciplinary 
offense occurred when he was a young lawyer, that it had been resolved by 
stipulations, and that he had not been required to testify before a panel of the board.  
He suggested that because that case had been resolved by stipulations and without 
a formal hearing, he did not take the case as seriously as he should have.  He 
testified that he is a different person now and that being deposed and testifying in 
the formal hearing in this case had made him appreciate the gravity of the situation.  
When asked why he had decided to “come clean” during the disciplinary process, 
he stated, “[I]t just hit me that what I’m doing is wrong. * * * I was not living up 
to my oath as a leader, as a lawyer, and as a good citizen.” 
{¶ 15} Although Arkow acknowledged that his only responsibility with 
respect to the QDROs was to pay a fee and send the required documents to QDRO 
Group so that the company’s experts could prepare the required order, he testified 
that he had “procrastinated working on [QDROs]” because he had never fully 
understood them and had been afraid that he would “mess them up.”  In the wake 
of this disciplinary proceeding, Arkow has taken some affirmative action to change 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
his behavior: he has started using an office-management software program to help 
him stay organized and on task, and in the summer of 2021, he commenced therapy 
to address his procrastination.  His therapist submitted a written report stating that 
she had diagnosed him with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed 
mood and that she saw him 11 times from August 2021 through April 2022.  The 
therapist reported that Arkow was “intent on working to make genuine and true 
change to his thinking and behavior” and was “making good progress in therapy.”  
She offered that his overall prognosis to learn from this matter and continue to 
practice law “in the most honest and ethical manner” was “very good.”  She did 
not, however, opine that Arkow’s disorder had contributed to his misconduct.  Nor 
did Arkow seek to establish his disorder as a mitigating factor pursuant to Gov.Bar 
R. V(13)(C)(7). 
{¶ 16} The parties recommended that Arkow be suspended from the 
practice of law for two years, with one year stayed on the conditions that he commit 
no further misconduct and that he be required to serve one year of monitored 
probation.  In support of that recommendation, they cited six cases in which we 
imposed term suspensions ranging from one to two years with some portion of the 
suspension conditionally stayed.  Of those cases, the board found Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Gildee, 134 Ohio St.3d 374, 2012-Ohio-5641, 982 N.E.2d 704, 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Moore, 143 Ohio St.3d 252, 2015-Ohio-2488, 36 N.E.3d 
171, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Karp, 156 Ohio St.3d 218, 2018-Ohio-5212, 124 
N.E.3d 819, to be most instructive. 
{¶ 17} In Gildee, the attorney misappropriated client funds, made 
misrepresentations to the relator regarding the status of those funds, and fabricated 
documents to support her lies.  Many of the aggravating and mitigating factors that 
are present in this case were also present in Gildee, but in contrast to Arkow, Gildee 
had no history of prior discipline.  We suspended Gildee for two years but stayed 
January Term, 2022 
 
7 
the second year of that suspension on the condition that she commit no further 
misconduct. 
{¶ 18} In Moore, we imposed that same sanction (albeit with additional 
conditions) on an attorney for engaging in multiple instances of shoplifting by 
scanning UPC codes that he had carried into a store to purchase expensive bottles 
of wine at a self-scan checkout register.  He then submitted false statements about 
those incidents during the ensuing disciplinary investigation—including at least 
one instance in which he was under oath.  In addition to having several of the 
aggravating factors that are present here, Moore failed to cooperate in the 
disciplinary process and failed to make restitution until shortly before his 
disciplinary hearing.  He was also unwilling to accept responsibility for his 
misconduct.  The primary mitigating factors were that Moore had no prior 
discipline and other sanctions had been imposed for his misconduct. 
{¶ 19} The board found that Arkow’s misconduct was most similar to that 
in Karp, 156 Ohio St.3d 218, 2018-Ohio-5212, 124 N.E.3d 819.  Karp failed to 
timely file a work-visa petition for a client, failed to reasonably consult with the 
client about the means by which her objectives were to be accomplished, and failed 
to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit her to make 
informed decisions. He also engaged in a pattern of misrepresentations in which he 
lied to his client, her employer, the relator, and the federal government.  In addition 
to that misconduct, Karp impermissibly commingled personal and client funds in 
his client trust account.  For Karp’s misconduct, we imposed a two-year suspension 
with 18 months stayed on conditions.  But while Karp’s misconduct involved a 
single client, Arkow’s misconduct affected two clients and was virtually identical 
to misconduct for which he has previously been disciplined.  Moreover, Arkow did 
not establish the existence of a mitigating mental disorder, as Karp did. 
{¶ 20} On the authority of Gildee, Moore, and Karp, the board found that 
the parties’ jointly recommended sanction of a two-year suspension, with one year 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8 
conditionally stayed, combined with a one-year period of monitored probation is a 
fair and appropriate sanction for Arkow’s misconduct.  Based on the particular facts 
of this case, however, the board further recommends that the stay be conditioned 
on Arkow’s continued engagement in regular mental-health treatment as 
recommended by his therapist or other qualified healthcare professional.  The board 
also recommends that in addition to the standard conditions for reinstatement, 
Arkow be required to submit (1) proof that he has completed eight hours of 
continuing legal education (“CLE”), in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. 
V(24), with five of those hours focused on QDROs, two hours focused on ethics, 
and one hour focused on law-office management, and (2) an opinion from his 
therapist or another qualified healthcare professional that he is capable of resuming 
the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law. 
{¶ 21} After independently reviewing the record in this case and our 
precedent, we agree that the board’s recommended sanction is the appropriate 
sanction for Arkow’s misconduct. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 22} Accordingly, Seth Walter Arkow is suspended from the practice of 
law for two years, with one year stayed on the conditions that he commit no further 
misconduct and continue to engage in regular mental-health treatment as 
recommended by his therapist or another qualified healthcare professional.  If 
Arkow fails to comply with either condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted and 
he will serve the full two-year suspension.  In addition to the conditions of 
reinstatement set forth in Gov.Bar R. V(24), Arkow shall be required to submit (1) 
proof that he has completed eight hours of CLE in addition to the requirements of 
Gov.Bar R. X, with five of those hours focused on QDROs, two hours focused on 
ethics, and one hour focused on law-office management, and (2) an opinion from 
his therapist or another qualified healthcare professional that he can return to the 
competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.  Upon reinstatement, Arkow 
January Term, 2022 
 
9 
shall serve one year of monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(21).  
Costs are taxed to Arkow. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.C., and Jude B. Streb; and 
Richard S. Milligan, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
The Coughlan Law Firm, L.L.C., and Jonathan E. Coughlan, for respondent. 
_________________