Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Allen

Citation: 2001-Ohio-233

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-01-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Allen, 91 Ohio St.3d 27, 2001-Ohio-233.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ALLEN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Allen (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 27.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Eighteen-month suspension with nine months 
of suspension stayed — Accepting employment when the exercise of 
attorney’s professional judgment may be affected by attorney’s personal 
interests — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law. 
(No. 00-1549 — Submitted October 17, 2000 — Decided January 17, 2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-11. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In September 1983, respondent, Craig A. Allen of Ironton, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0007261, represented Paul E. Carman in 
negotiations with James Heald to transfer Carman’s D-5 liquor permit, assets, and 
inventory to Shadybrook Inn, a company that respondent was later to incorporate 
and in which he and Heald would each have a twenty-percent interest. 
 
In November 1983, respondent filed incorporation papers for Shadybrook 
Inn, Inc., which was to become the holder of the liquor permit when the Ohio 
Department of Liquor Control (“ODLC”) approved a transfer of ownership.  In 
December 1983, respondent filed an application for transfer of location requesting 
that the liquor permit for Paul E. Carman, d.b.a. Myra Maes, be transferred to 
Paul E. Carman, d.b.a. Shadybrook Inn, at a different location.  Respondent listed 
himself in the application as Carman’s attorney.  The application to transfer 
location was approved, and Shadybrook Inn opened for business in February 
1984. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
In March 1984, respondent submitted to the ODLC an application for 
transfer of ownership of the D-5 liquor permit from Paul E. Carman, d.b.a. 
Shadybrook Inn, to Shadybrook Inn, Inc., d.b.a. Shadybrook Inn.  The ODLC 
returned the application unapproved, requesting a stockholders’ affidavit and a 
fingerprint card for Heald.  Respondent waited until December 1985 to resubmit 
the application for transfer of ownership, indicating at that time that he was 
representing both the seller, Paul E. Carman, and the buyer, Shadybrook Inn, Inc. 
 
In the meantime, in mid-1984, Carman had moved to Kentucky, having 
been advised by respondent that the transfer of ownership of the license was in 
process.  Carman remained in Kentucky from 1984 until 1993.  Respondent sent 
correspondence to Carman in April and June 1984 and in January 1986, but 
otherwise did not write to, speak to, or meet with Carman while he was in 
Kentucky. 
 
Although Carman believed he had transferred the assets of Shadybrook 
Inn and was not involved in its operation, the ODLC sent annual renewal 
applications for the liquor permit to Carman “d.b.a. Shadybrook Inn” at the 
company’s Ohio location.  From 1984 through 1992, respondent signed renewal 
applications for the liquor permit in order that it not expire.  In 1984, he signed as 
agent for Paul E. Carman, d.b.a. Shadybrook Inn; in 1985 and 1986, he signed 
Paul E. Carman’s name as “president” of Shadybrook Inn; and from 1987 through 
1992, he signed the application as “Craig Allen, Secretary,” in each case 
representing that no one other than the permit holder had an interest in the 
business.  Respondent was the secretary of Shadybrook, Inc., but not the secretary 
of Paul E. Carman. 
 
In May 1992, the ODLC rejected both the application for transfer of 
ownership and the application for renewal of the license.  Because the license had 
remained in Carman’s name, in 1992 the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services 
filed liens against him for $9,566.49 for Shadybrook’s unpaid BES contributions.  
January Term, 2001 
3 
By July 1998, the BES liens against Carman for the operation of Shadybrook Inn 
amounted to $36,476.44, which Shadybrook, Inc. settled in full that same month.  
Shadybrook Inn also accrued sales tax deficiencies during this same period, which 
Shadybrook, Inc. paid in May 1995. 
 
Some of the contribution deficiencies were accrued during the period 
beginning in January 1991, when respondent as secretary of Shadybrook, Inc., 
without the knowledge of Carman, entered into a two-year lease agreement with 
Terri Harrison and Kevin Tolley.  As the reputed secretary of Paul E. Carman, 
Inc. and Shadybrook, Inc., respondent hired Harrison and Tolley as managers of 
the inn.  In fact, the Ohio Secretary of State had cancelled the charter of a 
corporation known as P.E. Carman, Inc. in January 1986 for failure to pay 
franchise taxes, respondent was never secretary of P.E. Carman, Inc., and the 
license was never in the name of P.E. Carman, Inc. 
 
On August 23, 1999, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a six-
count complaint charging that respondent’s conduct in these matters violated 
numerous provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  Respondent 
answered and the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s representation of Carman in the 
sale of assets to Shadybrook, Inc., in which he had an interest, his actions that 
resulted in the accrual of BES employment contributions and sales taxes against 
Carman, and his 1991 lease on behalf of Carman all violated DR 5-101(A)(1) 
(except with consent after full disclosure a lawyer shall not accept employment if 
the exercise of his professional judgment may be affected by the lawyer’s 
personal interests).  It concluded that respondent’s twenty-one-month delay 
between the March 1984 submission of the original application for transfer of the 
liquor license until the December 1985 application violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (a 
lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter).  It said that respondent’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
failure to take prompt steps to remove the tax liens that accrued against Carman 
also violated DR 6-101(A)(3).  It  further concluded that respondent’s signing of 
Carman’s name and representing that he was Carman’s agent on liquor renewal 
applications, which should have been signed by the permit holder, and his false 
representations in general to the ODLC violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall 
not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  
Finally, it concluded that all of respondent’s actions violated  DR 1-102(A)(6) (a 
lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness 
to practice law). 
 
The panel noted that respondent had been a lawyer for thirty-three years 
with no prior disciplinary violation, that he cooperated completely in the 
investigation, and that numerous letters attested to respondent’s good character.  
Consequently, the panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for eighteen months with nine months stayed.  The board adopted 
the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
 
We adopt the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the board.  
Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months 
with nine of those months stayed. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna M. Anelli, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Geoffrey Stern and Christopher J. Weber, for respondent. 
__________________