Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Potter

Citation: 2010-Ohio-2521

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-06-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Potter, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2521.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-2521 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. POTTER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Potter,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2521.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), but with significant 
mitigating factors — One-year license suspension stayed on condition. 
(No. 2010-0288 ⎯ Submitted March 31, 2010 ⎯ Decided June 10, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-049. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Albert Loron Potter II of Bowling Green, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0023775, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1982. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with violating 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting illegal acts that reflect adversely on the lawyer’s 
honesty or trustworthiness), 8.4(c) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(h) (prohibiting conduct that adversely 
reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The parties stipulated that the 
respondent’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and 8.4(h), and relator 
dismissed the 8.4(b) charge. 
{¶ 3} A panel of board members heard the case and, based on the 
submitted stipulations and other evidence, issued findings of fact and conclusions 
of law.  The panel found clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated 
the rules as stipulated.  The parties submitted a proposed sanction of a one-year 
suspension, all conditionally stayed, which the panel also recommended.  The 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances adopted the panel’s findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommended sanction. We accept the board’s findings 
and conclusions, and we adopt the recommended sanction. 
Stipulated Misconduct 
{¶ 4} The respondent began representing a client in 2003, and the client 
granted respondent a power of attorney.  A previous attorney-in-fact had depleted 
the client’s savings, leaving him no funds for his nursing-home care and medical 
needs.  The respondent controlled his client’s finances, was responsible for 
decisions relating to the client’s medical care, and handled a variety of legal 
matters such as pursuing litigation against the former attorney-in-fact and 
terminating the client’s family trust.  To pay for his client’s medical care, 
respondent mortgaged some of the client’s property. 
{¶ 5} In 2006, the client died, and respondent was appointed executor of 
the estate.  Respondent determined it necessary to sell farm property that the 
client had owned to satisfy the mortgage that had paid for the client’s care.  The 
sole beneficiary of the client’s estate agreed that the sale was necessary.  A local 
appraiser approved by the probate court appraised the property at $183,750, and 
the appraisal was included in the inventory and appraisal of the estate also 
approved by the probate court. 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
{¶ 6} Respondent had an interest in buying the farm property.  Although 
he initially mentioned this fact to the beneficiary of his client’s estate, he did not 
pursue the possibility of a sale with her.  Instead, respondent contacted a friend 
and asked the friend to purchase the property in his own name while using funds 
from respondent.  In August 2007, respondent, as executor for the estate, entered 
into a contract to sell the farm property to the friend and the friend’s wife for the 
appraised value.  The cashier’s check the friend used to purchase the property was 
drawn from respondent’s personal funds.  The check did not include a remitter.  
At the time of the transaction, respondent did not disclose his involvement in the 
purchase of the property to the beneficiary of the estate, the probate court, or the 
closing agent. 
{¶ 7} In May 2008, respondent self-reported his misconduct to relator.  
Respondent cooperated with the investigation, met with the beneficiary of the 
estate to disclose the misconduct, and amended certain filings in the probate court 
to reflect his purchase of the property.  Respondent continued to serve as executor 
of the estate until it was closed in August 2009, and no actions have been filed in 
probate court complaining of the real estate transaction.  Respondent agreed to 
waive extraordinary legal fees, totaling $90,969.47, owed him by the estate.  It 
appears that no one lost money due to the respondent’s misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  Because each disciplinary 
case is unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take 
into account “all relevant factors” in determining what sanction to impose.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
{¶ 9} The board found that factors mitigating respondent’s conduct 
included his lack of a prior disciplinary record, BCGD Proc.Reg. (10)(B)(2)(a), 
his effort to rectify the consequences of his misconduct, (10)(B)(2)(c), his full 
cooperation in the investigation and his self-reporting to Disciplinary Counsel, 
(10)(B)(2)(d), and his otherwise good character and reputation, (10)(B)(2)(e).  
The board found that the lone aggravating factor in relation to respondent’s 
conduct was that he had acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, BCGD 
Proc.Reg. (10)(B)(1)(b). 
{¶ 10} A violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) will typically result in an actual 
suspension from the practice of law unless “significant mitigating factors that 
warrant a departure” from that principle are present.  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Rohrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 65, 2009-Ohio-5930, 919 N.E.2d 180, ¶ 45.  We agree 
with the board and the parties that this case is one in which significant mitigating 
factors are present, and those factors lead us to conclude that respondent is 
unlikely to commit future misconduct.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Niermeyer, 
119 Ohio St.3d 99, 2008-Ohio-3824, 892 N.E.2d 434, ¶ 13. 
{¶ 11} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for one year; however, the suspension is stayed on the condition that he 
commit no further misconduct during the stayed suspension period.  If respondent 
violates this condition, the stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve the one-
year suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
 
BROWN, C.J., not participating. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A., and Geoffrey Stern, for 
respondent. 
______________________