Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Halliburton-Cohen

Citation: 2002-Ohio-640

Docket Number: 20011563

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-01-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Halliburton-Cohen, 94 Ohio St.3d 217, 2002-Ohio-640.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. HALLIBURTON-COHEN. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Halliburton-Cohen (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 217.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension stayed with conditions 
— Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — 
Failing to promptly deliver to client funds or property to which client is 
entitled — Failing to maintain complete records of client funds and 
render appropriate accounts thereof. 
(No. 01-1563 — Submitted October 16, 2001 — Decided January 30, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-104. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On December 4, 2000, relator, Columbus Bar Association, 
filed an eight-count complaint charging that respondent, Kim M. Halliburton-
Cohen of Grandview Heights, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0023389, violated 
the Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to account for and return client 
funds on several occasions.  Respondent answered, and the matter was referred to 
a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
Based on stipulations of the parties and testimony at a hearing on June 25, 
2001, the panel found that in January 1998, Carol Norris paid respondent a $100 
consultation fee and a $2,500 retainer to represent her.  Although a month later 
Norris decided not to pursue the litigation for which she hired respondent, 
respondent did not return her retainer until May 1999.  The panel concluded that 
in this matter respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in 
conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and 9-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client funds or property to which 
the client is entitled). 
 
The panel also found that in 1998, while representing Rebecca Baron in a 
divorce case, respondent received and held in escrow $6,000 from the sale of a 
house.  Respondent was to pay Mr. Baron $2,587.95 from the escrow, but did not 
do so until a grievance was filed against her and six months after she received a 
court order that she do so.  The panel concluded that in this matter respondent 
violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and 9-102(B)(4). 
 
The panel further found that in January 1999, Danita Peck requested a 
return of the $239.50 she had paid respondent to represent her in a dissolution, but 
respondent did not return the funds until March 2000 after a grievance was filed.  
This failure, concluded the panel, violated DR 9-102(B)(4). 
 
Finally, the panel found that from January 1998 through September 1999, 
respondent did not maintain accurate and complete records of the client funds 
entrusted to her, that she did not pay funds to clients when requested, that on 
some occasions she used her client trust fund for personal expenses, and that on at 
least one occasion a check from that account was dishonored.  The panel 
concluded that respondent’s conduct during this period violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 
9-102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of all funds of a client 
coming into her possession and render appropriate accounts thereof), and 9-
102(B)(4). 
 
Relator withdrew the four remaining disciplinary counts against 
respondent. 
 
The panel received in mitigation evidence that respondent had no prior 
disciplinary actions against her, that she appeared to have no dishonest motive, 
that she returned all client funds, that she cooperated with relator, and that she had 
undertaken appropriate psychological counseling to address the depression she 
suffered during the period of these infractions.  The panel recommended that 
January Term, 2002 
3 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year, with the entire 
suspension stayed, provided that respondent participate in a monitored probation 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9), and that she conform her office and accounting 
procedures to acceptable professional standards.  The board adopted the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
 
On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice 
of law for one year; however, the entire suspension is stayed, provided that 
respondent participates in a one-year monitored probation program pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. V(9), and that she conform her office and accounting procedures to 
professional standards acceptable to relator.  Failure to meet these conditions of 
probation will result in an actual suspension from the practice of law for one year.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Mary Jo Cusack, Joanne S. Peters, Bruce A. Campbell and Jill M. 
Snitcher McQuain, for relator. 
 
Heald & Long and Anthony M. Heald, for respondent. 
__________________