Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Walker

Citation: 2008-Ohio-3321

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Walker, 119 Ohio St.3d 47, 2008-Ohio-3321.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WALKER. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Walker, 119 Ohio St.3d 47, 2008-Ohio-3321.] 
Attorney misconduct — Engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude 
— Engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice 
— Two years’ suspension with second year stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2007-2380 – Submitted February 27, 2008 – Decided July 8, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-061. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Donald L. Walker of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0033764, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1977.  On December 
26, 1984, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year for 
failing to promptly return a client’s money, neglecting an entrusted legal matter, 
and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.  Akron Bar 
Assn. v. Walker (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 31, 15 OBR 70, 472 N.E.2d 334. 
{¶ 2} On January 31, 2007, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a two-
count amended complaint charging respondent with violations of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  Respondent stipulated to the violations set forth in 
count one of the complaint.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline held a hearing and, based on the stipulations and other 
evidence, made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation, 
which the board adopted. 
{¶ 3} The board recommends that we suspend respondent from the 
practice of law for two years, with the second year stayed on conditions.  We 
adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 4} Respondent was a long-time acquaintance of John C. Cannady, and 
respondent also represented Cannady in various legal matters.  Cannady died in 
2002.  During the administration of the estate, Cannady’s son, Donald C. 
Cannady, objected to the presentation of a deed dated January 9, 2001.  According 
to the deed, Donald Cannady had transferred certain property to his father and had 
retained a life estate.  Donald Cannady, however, was not in Summit County at 
the time the deed was executed and had not signed his name to the deed. 
{¶ 5} Respondent met with Donald Cannady and his attorney to discuss 
the matter.  At that time, respondent admitted that he had never met Donald 
Cannady and had not prepared the deed on Donald’s behalf.  Instead, respondent 
claimed that the decedent, John Cannady, had retained his services with respect to 
the deed and had introduced him to a person who claimed to be Donald Cannady.  
Respondent also acknowledged notarizing the deed. 
{¶ 6} Relator received a grievance concerning respondent’s involvement 
with the deed.  In his response to the letter of inquiry, respondent admitted that he 
had drafted and notarized the deed, but denied doing anything fraudulent.  He 
repeated his story that when the deed was signed, John Cannady had introduced 
one person as Donald Cannady and two other people who served as witnesses. 
{¶ 7} Relator decided to retain a handwriting expert and requested that 
respondent provide handwriting samples.  Respondent then admitted to having 
signed Donald Cannady’s name to the deed and the names of the witnesses and 
then notarizing the signatures. 
{¶ 8} Respondent admitted these facts, and the board found that 
respondent’s actions amounted to violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) (prohibiting 
illegal conduct involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) 
January Term, 2008 
3 
(prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 1-
102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law). 
Count II 
{¶ 9} On September 22, 2006, the panel held a hearing on the 
disciplinary charges in Count I.  During respondent’s testimony, he pledged to 
this court that he would never have another drink and would never again use 
marijuana or cocaine.  Six days later, respondent was arrested for possession of 
cocaine.  Respondent also admitted that prior to his arrest, he had consumed 
several alcoholic beverages. 
{¶ 10} Respondent was indicted for possession of cocaine, a fifth-degree 
felony.  In November 2006, respondent pleaded guilty to the charge and was 
sentenced to treatment in lieu of conviction. 
{¶ 11} The board found that respondent’s cocaine-possession charge 
constituted a violation of DR 1-102(A)(6). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 12} In recommending a sanction, the board considered the aggravating 
and mitigating factors listed in 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.”). 
{¶ 13} As aggravating factors, the parties stipulated that respondent has a 
prior disciplinary conviction and that he had made a false statement during the 
disciplinary process when he initially denied forging the signatures of Donald 
Cannady and the witnesses to the deed.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a) and (f). 
{¶ 14} In mitigation, the parties stipulated that respondent had paid all 
monies he owed to Donald Cannady pursuant to an agreement settling a civil 
lawsuit related to the forged signature.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c).  The board 
found that respondent did not act selfishly or with a profit motive, BCGD 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b), and that respondent had basically cooperated during the 
disciplinary process because he had corrected his false statement to relator, 
admitted his misconduct, and apologized and expressed remorse for his actions.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d).  In addition, the board found that respondent’s 
substance abuse and alcoholism contributed to his misconduct and that at the time 
of his second hearing, respondent was in compliance with his Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program (“OLAP”) contract and the terms of his sentence of treatment 
in lieu of conviction.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g) and (f). 
{¶ 15} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for two years, with the second year of the suspension stayed on the 
conditions that respondent (1) comply with all terms and conditions of his OLAP 
contract, (2) upon his return to the practice of law, submit to the appointment of a 
substance-abuse monitor and a law-practice monitor, (3) commit no further 
violations during the stay period, and (4) pay all costs of the proceedings.  The 
board adopted the panel’s recommendation. 
Review 
{¶ 16} Respondent does not challenge the board’s findings of misconduct 
or the recommended sanction.  We have reviewed the board’s record and its 
report, and we agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4), 1-
102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6). 
{¶ 17} We also agree that the board’s recommended sanction is 
appropriate.  A violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) ordinarily calls for an actual 
suspension from the practice of law.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Beeler, 105 Ohio 
St.3d 188, 2005-Ohio-1143, 824 N.E.2d 78, ¶ 44; Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237.  We find that the 
board’s recommended sanction is consistent with sanctions imposed for 
comparable misconduct. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
{¶ 18} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Maxwell (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 7, 697 
N.E.2d 597, we imposed a two-year suspension on an attorney who had forged 
signatures and notarized the forgeries.  We stayed the second year of the 
suspension on conditions, including that the attorney continue his treatment for 
substance abuse.  And in Beeler, 105 Ohio St.3d 188, 2005-Ohio-1143, 824 
N.E.2d 78, we imposed a two-year suspension, with 18 months stayed, on an 
attorney with a history of substance abuse who had directed his secretaries to sign 
deeds and wills as witnesses although they had not witnessed the signings or 
acknowledgements of the signings.  See also Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn v. Olivito, 
110 Ohio St.3d 64, 2006-Ohio-3564, 850 N.E.2d 702 (two-year suspension with 
one year conditionally stayed imposed on an attorney who forged clients’ 
signatures on a bankruptcy petition). 
{¶ 19} Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice of law for 
two years, with the second year stayed on the conditions set forth in the board’s 
report.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
MOYER, C.J., dissents. 
__________________ 
MOYER, C.J., dissenting. 
{¶20} Respondent committed multiple ethical rule violations by (1) 
forging various signatures on a deed during a drinking binge, (2) lying about these 
actions during the disciplinary process, and (3) being arrested for and pleading 
guilty to possession of cocaine, a fifth-degree felony.  I agree with the majority 
that these violations warrant an actual suspension from the practice of law.  See 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Beeler, 105 Ohio St.3d 188, 2005-Ohio-1143, 824 N.E.2d 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
78, ¶ 44.  However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to suspend 
respondent for two years, with one year stayed on conditions. 
{¶21} Respondent exhibits a troubling tendency toward recidivism.  In 
1984, we suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year for failing to 
promptly return a client’s money, neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, and 
engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (including not 
participating in disciplinary proceedings).  Akron Bar Assn. v. Walker (1984), 15 
Ohio St.3d 31, 15 OBR 70, 472 N.E.2d 334.  He appears not to have learned from 
this experience.  In the present case, he made false statements during the 
disciplinary process and denied all wrongdoing until the relator was forced to 
retain a handwriting expert to disprove respondent’s claims.  During the 
disciplinary proceedings, respondent testified that he would never have another 
drink, never again consume marijuana, and never again consume cocaine, and yet 
he was arrested six days later for cocaine possession.  Respondent’s actions reveal 
that he lacks regard for his ethical duties and that he is unable to control his 
behavior. 
{¶22} While I acknowledge that we have imposed partially stayed 
suspensions for forgery-related misconduct in previous cases, respondent’s 
troubling pattern of misconduct warrants a stricter sanction.  “[T]he primary 
purpose of disciplinary sanctions is not to punish the offender, but to protect the 
public.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. O'Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 204, 2004-Ohio-4704, 
815 N.E.2d 286, ¶ 53, citing Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Weaver (1975), 41 Ohio 
St.2d 97, 100, 70 O.O.2d 175, 322 N.E.2d 665.  In view of respondent’s pattern of 
misconduct, I am not convinced that he will be fit to practice law in the near 
future.  I would therefore impose an indefinite suspension from the practice of 
law, with reinstatement conditioned on complete and sustained compliance with 
the conditions set forth in the board’s report. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2008 
7 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol A. Costa, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Edward L. Gilbert Co., L.P.A., Edward L. Gilbert, and Michael J. Wright, 
for respondent. 
______________________