Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Land

Citation: 2014-Ohio-1162

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-03-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Land, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1162.] 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-1162 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LAND. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Land,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1162.] 
Attorney misconduct, including creating fraudulent documents and submitting 
them to the IRS and being convicted of a felony for corruptly endeavoring 
to obstruct the due administration of the IRS—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2013-0940—Submitted August 21, 2013—Decided March 27, 2014.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 12-084. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Suzanne Prieur Land of Hebron, Kentucky, Attorney 
Registration No. 0046878, was admitted to practice law in Ohio in 1990.  In 
September 2012, we imposed an interim felony suspension on Land’s license 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(3) after receiving a certified copy of the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
judgment entry of her conviction.  In re Land, 132 Ohio St.3d 1519, 2012-Ohio-
4042, 974 N.E.2d 115. 
{¶ 2} In a four-count complaint filed in November 2012, relator, 
disciplinary counsel, alleged that Land had violated the Rules of Professional 
Conduct by creating fraudulent documents in relation to estate-planning matters 
for three clients and by being convicted of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and 
impede the due administration of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).  She was 
sentenced by the federal court to five years of probation, including three years of 
home detention, but the probationary period may be reduced or extended by the 
federal government. 
{¶ 3} In April 2013, the parties submitted stipulations of fact and 
misconduct and of aggravating and mitigating factors.  They also submitted many 
joint exhibits, including numerous character letters from supporters.  A panel of 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline conducted a hearing 
on May 1, 2013, at which Land testified.  The panel also heard testimony from 
two character witnesses and a licensed social worker from the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program (“OLAP”) who had done an assessment of Land.  The panel 
also received a transcript of the testimony of Land’s treating therapist. 
{¶ 4} At the conclusion of the hearing on the matter, the parties jointly 
recommended that Land’s license to practice law be suspended indefinitely and 
that Land not be able to petition for reinstatement to the practice of law until she 
completes her federal sentence.  Additionally, the parties jointly recommended 
that Land be required to complete her contract with OLAP and continue treatment 
with a therapist until the therapist determines that treatment is no longer needed.  
The panel adopted the parties’ stipulated facts and conclusions regarding 
Professional Conduct Rule violations and agreed with the jointly recommended 
sanction of the parties.  The board agreed with the panel’s findings, conclusions, 
and recommendation. 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} For most of her career, Land worked for large law firms and 
provided estate-planning advice to wealthy clients.  As explained in detail below, 
in two separate incidents in early 2010, Land created fraudulent documents and 
submitted them to the IRS in an attempt to cover mistakes she had made in 
drafting estate-planning documents.  And in another case, also in early 2010, she 
created a fraudulent e-mail to bolster her credibility with regard to advice she had 
given the administrator of an estate.  Land testified at the hearing that her conduct 
was precipitated by her concern that her clients would lose tax benefits, that she 
would suffer repercussions professionally if the clients lost those benefits, and 
that she would be embarrassed if others knew of her drafting mistakes. 
{¶ 6} At the time of the misconduct, Land was abusing alcohol and self-
medicating with a prescription anti-anxiety drug she acquired over the Internet to 
help her deal with anxiety, depression, and the stresses of work.  A few months 
prior to the misconduct, Land had an automobile accident and was arrested and 
charged with driving under the influence.  She contested that charge, but lost at 
trial in January 2010. 
Hassman Estate 
{¶ 7} Land drafted some estate-planning documents for James Hassman, 
who later died.  At the time of his death, Hassman owned a condominium in 
Florida with a mortgage of approximately $800,000.  Hassman also had 
personally guaranteed lines of credit for two businesses through First Financial 
Bank.  His estate was administered in Florida, and his daughter, Jill Yates, served 
as his personal representative.  Land served as the primary contact for Yates but 
did not sign pleadings filed in court or appear in court.  Another attorney in her 
firm was the attorney of record.  Land offered advice and prepared pleadings and 
documents for the estate, including the IRS tax return. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} Yates paid the balance of the condominium mortgage with estate 
funds.  To have sufficient funds in the estate to pay off the mortgage, Yates 
transferred funds from a limited-liability company into the estate.  After paying 
off the mortgage, Yates did not have sufficient funds to satisfy the personally 
guaranteed debts to First Financial Bank, prompting the bank to sue Hassman’s 
estate.  The estate then filed a third-party complaint against Land and the law firm 
in which she was a partner, alleging that Land had committed malpractice either 
by directly advising Yates to transfer money from the limited-liability company to 
the estate and pay off the mortgage or by not advising against it. 
{¶ 9} Land claimed in her testimony at the hearing before the panel that 
she had advised Yates not to pay off the mortgage until all the estate’s debts were 
known.  She also testified that because her professional skills were being 
challenged and she was feeling pressure from her firm, she turned to greater 
alcohol consumption and self-medicating with the anti-anxiety drug she acquired 
over the Internet and went into a self-described downward spiral. 
{¶ 10} Ultimately, thinking that her word against a client’s was not good 
enough, Land fabricated an e-mail that contained the essence of the advice she 
had given Yates and made it look as if it had been sent to the client almost two 
years earlier.  In the course of the malpractice litigation, the plaintiffs hired a 
document examiner to review the e-mail, and he concluded the document was 
fraudulent.  Land eventually admitted to the fraud. 
{¶ 11} The parties stipulated, and the panel and board concluded, that this 
conduct, which forms the basis of Count Four of the complaint, violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 8.4(h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
{¶ 12} We adopt these findings and agree with these conclusions. 
Lienhart Estate 
{¶ 13} In 2003, as part of an estate plan for Frank Lienhart, Land created 
a limited-liability company and drafted an operating agreement for the company.  
The purpose of the operating agreement was to put restrictions on the transfer and 
control of the company so that the valuation of the assets of the company would 
be discounted, resulting in lower taxes owed by the estate.  Lienhart later died, 
and in representing his estate, Land filed a federal tax return, reflecting the lower 
value of the assets. 
{¶ 14} The tax break hinged on language in the operating agreement.  The 
IRS denied the tax benefit because it found that the language in the operating 
agreement was deficient.  The drafting error cost the estate a tax benefit of 
approximately $200,000. 
{¶ 15} After the IRS denied the tax benefit, Land, in early 2010, 
attempted to defraud the IRS by creating an “amendment” to the operating 
agreement that cured the deficient language.  She dated the document prior to 
Lienhart’s death and copied his and his son’s signatures onto the document from 
another document.  Land also signed and submitted an affidavit to authenticate 
the copy of the amendment she had provided.  The IRS continued to deny the tax 
break, and eventually, Land admitted that she had fabricated the amendment. 
{¶ 16} The parties stipulated, and the panel and board concluded, that this 
conduct, which forms the basis of Count Two of the complaint, violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h). 
{¶ 17} We adopt these findings and agree with these conclusions. 
Schloss Estate 
{¶ 18} Land created a limited-liability company as part of an estate plan 
for Milton Schloss.  She also drafted an operating agreement for the company to 
achieve the same tax benefit attempted in the estate plan for Lienhart.  The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
operating agreement was executed by Schloss and his sons in 2003.  Following 
Schloss’s death in 2007, Land prepared and submitted the federal tax return to the 
IRS.  This return reflected a decreased value of the company’s assets due to 
alleged restrictions on the assets pursuant to the operating agreement. 
{¶ 19} Again, the IRS questioned the tax break, and again, in early 2010, 
Land provided the IRS with a copy of an amendment to the operating agreement 
that had purportedly been executed before Schloss’s death.  To support the 
authenticity of the fraudulent amendment, Land also provided the IRS with 
several additional fraudulent documents, including a letter to the client and a 
business appraiser.  She also submitted an affidavit attesting to the amendment’s 
authenticity.  In 2011, Land admitted that she had fabricated the amendment and 
the documents that she had sent to the IRS to prove the amendment’s authenticity 
and that her affidavit contained false and misleading information.  The drafting 
error cost the estate a tax benefit of $600,000 to $700,000. 
{¶ 20} The parties stipulated, and the panel and board concluded, that this 
conduct, which forms the basis of Count Three of the complaint, violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 4.1(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from, in the course of representing a 
client, knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third 
person), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h). 
{¶ 21} We adopt these findings and agree with these conclusions. 
Felony Conviction 
{¶ 22} In March 2012, based on the facts as noted above, Land pled guilty 
to a federal information charging her with corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and 
impede the due administration of the Internal Revenue Code, in violation of 26 
U.S.C. 7212(a).  In August 2012, she was sentenced to five years of probation, 
including three years of home detention, and was ordered to abstain from alcohol 
use, to continue to receive mental-health treatment as deemed necessary by her 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
probation officer, and to pay criminal monetary penalties of $75,000 and an 
assessment of $100. 
{¶ 23} The parties stipulated, and the panel and board concluded, that by 
being convicted of a felony, which forms the basis of Count One of the complaint, 
Land violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) and 8.4(h). 
{¶ 24} We adopt these findings and agree with these conclusions. 
Sanction 
{¶ 25} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
several relevant factors, including the ethical duties violated, the actual injury 
caused, the existence of any aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B), 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; 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 
N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.   
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
{¶ 26} The parties stipulated, and the panel and board found, that several 
aggravating factors are present: Land acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, 
engaged in a pattern of misconduct, and committed multiple offenses.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b) through (d).  The panel and board found the following 
mitigating factors: absence of a prior disciplinary record, full and free disclosure 
and a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, imposition of other penalties or 
sanctions, chemical dependency or mental disability—as established through the 
testimony of a qualified health-care professional—that contributed to her 
misconduct, and evidence of good character and reputation.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), (d), (e), (f), and (g).  We adopt these findings. 
Sanction Recommended by Parties and Board 
{¶ 27} The parties stipulated at the hearing, and both the panel and the 
board agree, that the appropriate sanction for Land’s misconduct is that her 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
license to practice law be indefinitely suspended, that she not be permitted to 
petition for reinstatement until she completes her federal probation, that she 
complete the conditions of her OLAP contract, and that she continue to receive 
treatment from a therapist until the therapist determines it is no longer necessary. 
Similar Cases 
{¶ 28} The panel and board cite Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 128 Ohio 
St.3d 390, 2011-Ohio-957, 944 N.E.2d 1166, as supporting a sanction of 
indefinite suspension here.  We agree.  In Smith, we imposed an indefinite 
suspension with credit for time served under an interim felony suspension on an 
attorney who had attempted to conceal his compensation by having his employer 
transfer money into two businesses he owned.  He was convicted of conspiracy to 
defraud the IRS, four counts of making false tax returns, and one count of 
corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede an IRS investigation.  
Reinstatement was conditioned on the completion of his federal supervised 
release and execution of a final agreement to pay restitution.  The aggravating and 
mitigating factors were similar to those here. 
{¶ 29} We also hold that Disciplinary Counsel v. Bennett, 124 Ohio St.3d 
314, 2010-Ohio-313, 921 N.E.2d 1064, supports a sanction of an indefinite 
suspension in this case.  In Bennett, the attorney was convicted of a felony for 
structuring financial transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements for 
transfers in excess of $10,000.  The aggravating and mitigating factors in that case 
were similar to those here, and we indefinitely suspended the attorney but granted 
him credit for the time he had served under the interim suspension order. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 30} Accordingly, Suzanne Prieur Land is indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio.  Land may not petition for reinstatement until she has 
completed her federal probation.  In addition, upon petitioning for reinstatement, 
Land must present proof that she either satisfactorily completed her OLAP 
January Term, 2014 
9 
 
contract or is in compliance with the conditions of her current OLAP contract and 
that she either continues to receive treatment from a therapist or that the therapist 
determined that treatment is no longer necessary.  We credit Land for the time she 
has served under the September 6, 2012 interim suspension.  Costs are taxed to 
Land. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and 
O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in the judgment and the sanction but would not 
credit respondent any time served under the interim suspension. 
____________________ 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Chief Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson, L.P.A., George D. Jonson, and Lisa M. 
Zaring, for respondent. 
_________________________