Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Insley

Citation: 2004-Ohio-6564

Docket Number: 20041412

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-12-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Insley, 104 Ohio St.3d 424, 2004-Ohio-6564.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. INSLEY. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Insley, 104 Ohio St.3d 424, 2004-Ohio-6564.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Conduct involving dishonesty — Conduct prejudicial 
to administration of justice — Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 
practice law — Neglect of client’s legal matters — Failure to carry out 
contract of employment — Failure to seek the lawful objectives of a client 
— Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2004-1412 — Submitted October 13, 2004 — Decided December 15, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-093. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Heather Renee Insley of Findlay, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0074162, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2001.  
On October 6, 2003, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with 
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent was served 
with the complaint but did not answer, and relator moved for default.  A master 
commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline granted the motion, making findings of misconduct, which the board 
adopted, and a recommendation, which the board modified. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 2} A partner in the law firm that formerly employed respondent 
reported to relator the events underlying this complaint.  On April 21, 2003, 
during the ensuing investigation, respondent acknowledged notice of the 
grievance and confirmed that she did not deny the allegations against her.  
Respondent later waived probable cause for the filing of the complaint.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} Evidence established that in August 2002, a client retained 
respondent to obtain temporary custody of his cousin, an arrangement that would 
enable the student to complete high school at the school she had been attending, 
even though her mother had moved out of the district.  The girl’s mother 
consented to the temporary-custody arrangement.  Changing the girl’s residence 
and enrolling her in the preferred school without tuition, however, required an 
order from the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County, Juvenile Division.  
{¶ 4} On August 27, 2002, respondent wrote to school officials and 
enclosed copies of an executed petition for temporary custody and a consent 
judgment entry that she represented would be filed in court the same day.   Her 
letter informed the officials that this filing would provide her client temporary 
legal custody and guardianship of his cousin, thereby changing the girl’s 
designated residence so that she could remain in the high school. 
{¶ 5} By October 30, 2002, respondent had not filed the petition and 
consent judgment entry.  As a result, a school official alerted respondent’s client 
to the fact that the school had not yet received a copy of the court order granting 
the client temporary custody of his cousin.  The client, in turn, asked respondent 
about the status of the order. 
{¶ 6} In response, respondent photocopied signatures of a magistrate and 
common pleas court judge from signed documents in unrelated cases.  Using the 
copied signatures, she fabricated a new document purporting to be the filed 
petition and consent judgment entry, granting temporary custody to her client.  
The document purported to have been signed and approved by the magistrate and 
judge.    Respondent then faxed the falsified document to the school.  Her cover 
letter falsely advised school officials that all necessary papers had been filed in 
court and that the girl’s custody had been changed, making her a resident of the 
school district.   
January Term, 2004 
3 
{¶ 7} Respondent’s former law firm discovered her forgeries and 
misrepresentations in March 2003 and demanded her resignation.  Respondent 
resigned.  The law firm waived fees in the client’s case. 
{¶ 8} From this evidence, the board found that respondent had violated 
DR 1-102(A)(4) (barring conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (barring conduct prejudicial to the administration 
of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (barring conduct that adversely reflects on an attorney’s 
fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting neglect of an entrusted legal 
matter), 7-101(A)(l) (requiring an attorney to seek the lawful objectives of a client 
through reasonably available means permitted by law), and 7-101(A)(2) 
(requiring an attorney to carry out a contract for professional employment). 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the mitigating and aggravating factors of respondent’s case.  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.”).  In mitigation, the board found that respondent had no 
prior disciplinary record.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a).  As an aggravating 
feature, the board found that although respondent cooperated initially in the 
investigation of her misconduct,  she did not answer relator’s complaint or 
subsequently participate in the disciplinary process.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(e). 
{¶ 10} Relator recommended an 18-month suspension.  The master 
commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law for one year.  The board, however, found that respondent’s misconduct also 
warranted a period of supervision “based on the unexplained nature of the fraud at 
the expense of Court judicial officers.”  The board recommended that 
respondent’s law license be suspended for two years and that the second year of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
the suspension be stayed on the conditions that (1) she be placed on a one-year 
probation and (2) during her probation, respondent’s practice be overseen by an 
appointed monitor.  See Gov.Bar R. V(9). 
{¶ 11} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 
1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), and 7-101(A)(2), as found 
by the board.  The board’s recommended sanction, however, is not commensurate 
with the duplicity respondent demonstrated in this case.  The appropriate sanction 
for this misconduct is an indefinite suspension. 
{¶ 12} We have decried attorneys who lie to the courts, Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Greene (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 13, 655 N.E.2d 1299, Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Bandy (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 291, 690 N.E.2d 1280, or their clients, 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 658 N.E.2d 237, 
and we have responded with appropriate suspensions.  Accord Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Trumbo (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 369, 667 N.E.2d 1186.  Moreover, we 
have called the fabrication of a judicial officer’s signature “abhorrent to our legal 
system.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Hutchins, 102 Ohio St.3d 97, 2004-Ohio-1805, 
807 N.E.2d 303, ¶ 31.  The combination of these transgressions, together with the 
dearth of extenuating circumstances in this case, warrants an indefinite 
suspension. 
{¶ 13} Respondent is therefore suspended indefinitely from the practice of 
law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 14} I dissent from the majority’s opinion.  Because of the respondent’s 
lack of prior discipline and because respondent had no motive for personal gain, I 
January Term, 2004 
5 
would follow the recommendations of the board.  I would suspend respondent for 
two years with one year stayed and impose the board’s recommended conditions. 
 
F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting 
opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Brian E. Shinn, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
_______________________