Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Longino

Citation: 2011-Ohio-1524

Docket Number: 20101646

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-04-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Longino, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1524.] 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-1524 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. LONGINO. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Longino,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1524.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Multiple violations of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct, including the misappropriation of client funds — Permanent 
disbarment. 
(No. 2010-1646 — Submitted January 4, 2011 — Decided April 6, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-079. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Shondra Collette Longino of Mayfield Heights, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0081874, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
2007.  In October 2009, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a 12-count complaint 
charging respondent with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct 
arising from her neglect of client matters; failure to keep her clients informed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
about the status of their cases and obtain their informed consent; improper 
notarization of affidavits, including the notarization of documents that were not 
signed, were not signed by the purported signatory, or contained false 
information; her settlement of a client’s legal matter without his consent and 
subsequent misappropriation of the settlement proceeds; and her representation of 
two clients with conflicting interests.  Relator amended its complaint in February 
2010 to allege three additional counts of misconduct relating to respondent’s 
mishandling of her client trust account and two client bankruptcies. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline conducted a three-day hearing.  At the close of its case, relator moved 
to dismiss counts 4 and 5 of its complaint, and the panel granted the motion. 
{¶ 3} Having considered the testimony of respondent and 11 other 
witnesses, more than 120 exhibits, and stipulations of fact and misconduct 
regarding two counts of the amended complaint, the panel issued findings of fact 
and conclusions of law and recommended that respondent be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law with any future reinstatement contingent upon 
certain conditions. 
{¶ 4} The board accepted the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of 
law.  But citing respondent’s “extraordinary record of misconduct” in her brief 
legal career, the board recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred 
from the practice of law in Ohio.  We accept these findings of fact and 
misconduct and conclude that the appropriate sanction for respondent’s 
misconduct is permanent disbarment. 
Misconduct 
Counts 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 
{¶ 5} Counts 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 relate to respondent’s conduct in notarizing 
and filing poverty affidavits on behalf of her clients.  Each of the affidavits falsely 
states that it was sworn to and subscribed in respondent’s presence.  One client 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
completed portions of a poverty affidavit but did not sign it.  Someone later 
completed the affidavit with false information and signed the client’s name; 
respondent, however, admitted that she notarized the document, falsely indicating 
that the client had sworn to and subscribed the affidavit in her presence. 
{¶ 6} Two of the affidavits were signed by persons other than the named 
affiants without indicating that they were signed with permission.  Respondent 
also placed her notary stamp and seal on a fourth affidavit purporting to be that of 
the named affiant, although it did not bear any signature, and signed a fifth 
client’s name to at least one affidavit and then notarized her own signing of the 
client’s name. 
{¶ 7} With respect to these five counts, the panel found that respondent 
committed four violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 
three violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and five violations of 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Count 1 
{¶ 8} The evidence adduced at the panel hearing demonstrates that in 
August 2008, a client paid respondent $750 and retained her to appeal the 
Cuyahoga County Employment and Family Services Agency’s decision revoking 
her childcare license.  Although respondent was aware that time was of the 
essence, she waited nearly one month to file the appeal, which was dismissed in 
December 2008 for failure to comply with the statutory requirements for 
perfecting the appeal.  Respondent did not notify the client of the dismissal and in 
March 2009 filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment without the 
client’s knowledge or consent.  In May 2009, after the client learned of the status 
of the case from relator, the client met with respondent to discuss the dismissal of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
her appeal and subsequent denial of the motion for relief from judgment.  
Although respondent appealed the denial of the motion, the client terminated her 
representation in September 2009 because respondent failed to keep her apprised 
of the status of the appeal.1  
{¶ 9} The panel and board also found that during the course of her 
representation, respondent filed two poverty affidavits on the client’s behalf.  The 
first affidavit contained false information, was not signed, falsely stated that it had 
been sworn to and subscribed in respondent’s presence, and was filed without the 
client’s knowledge or consent.  The second affidavit was blank when the client 
signed it, but someone other than the client filled in the information. 
{¶ 10} The panel and board concluded that these facts clearly and 
convincingly demonstrate that respondent has violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 
(requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 
1.4(a)(1) (requiring a lawyer to inform the client of any decision or circumstance 
with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required), 1.4(a)(3) 
(requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter), and 8.4(c), (d), and (h). 
Count 2 
{¶ 11} In September 2008, another client paid respondent $450 in attorney 
fees and $375 for service by publication to initiate divorce proceedings on his 
behalf.  At that time, the client signed a poverty affidavit.  Respondent did not 
deposit the money that the client had given her for court costs into her client trust 
account.  After more than three months, respondent filed a divorce complaint on 
the client’s behalf but did not request service by publication as he had requested.  
Instead, respondent included with the complaint a poverty affidavit that contained 
                                                 
1 Subsequently, the Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the Civ.R. 60(B) 
motion and remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.  In re Jones-Smith, 8th 
Dist. No. 93276, 2009-Ohio-6470.   
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
false financial information for the client, a forged client signature, and a false 
notary jurat stating that the client had sworn to and subscribed the affidavit in 
respondent’s presence. 
{¶ 12} Despite making several attempts to inquire about the status of his 
case, the client was unable to reach the respondent.  When he finally reached her 
and went to her office, respondent gave him documents that falsely stated that the 
divorce had been filed with instructions for service by publication.  Because the 
documents did not contain a file stamp or proof of publication, the client sought to 
verify the filing with the court, where he discovered that someone had forged his 
signature on a poverty affidavit.  After the client confronted respondent, she 
dismissed the divorce proceeding and refunded his money. 
{¶ 13} Based upon these findings, the panel and board found that 
respondent’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer 
to deposit into a client trust account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in 
advance), and 8.4(c), (d), and (h).  Although relator’s complaint alleged that 
respondent’s conduct also violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(1), the board made no 
findings with respect to that allegation.  Because relator has not proven the 
allegation by clear and convincing evidence, we hereby dismiss it. 
Count 10 
{¶ 14} The charges in count 10 arise from respondent’s settling of a 
client’s civil matter without the client’s knowledge or consent and then 
misappropriating proceeds of that settlement. 
{¶ 15} Prior to the panel hearing, respondent stipulated to the allegations 
contained in count 10 of relator’s complaint, with three modifications to which 
relator consented.2  Respondent acknowledged that she did not notify the client of 
                                                 
2 The modifications included (1) respondent’s denial that she specifically told the client that “these 
things take time,” as alleged in the amended complaint, (2) respondent’s denial that she signed the 
back of the settlement check as alleged in the amended complaint, and (3) the deletion of a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
the settlement offer, did not receive his authorization to settle the case for $8,000, 
and did not advise him that his case had been dismissed with prejudice in June 
2008.  Although she denied that she had forged the client’s signature on the 
release of claims or the settlement check, she stipulated that she and her niece 
signed the release as purported witnesses to the forged client signature, that 
someone forged the client’s signature on the back of the check, that she deposited 
the settlement check into her operating account, and that she dissipated the 
settlement proceeds. 
{¶ 16} When the client and his wife wrote to the respondent in November 
2008 inquiring about the status of the case, she spoke with him and left him with 
the impression that his case was still pending.  In September 2009, the client 
learned that his case had been settled more than a year earlier.  When he 
confronted respondent with this knowledge, she claimed that she was unaware of 
any settlement but that she would investigate the matter.  In a September 25, 2009 
letter to the client, she stated that “[i]t appears that a check for $8,000.00 was sent 
in settlement from [the defendant]” and offered to pay the client 66 percent of the 
settlement proceeds in installments.  As of the date of the hearing, respondent had 
not paid the client any portion of the settlement. 
{¶ 17} Based upon respondent’s stipulations and her testimony, the panel 
and board found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent had violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(a) (requiring a lawyer to abide by the client’s decisions 
concerning the objectives of representation and to consult with the client as to the 
means by which those objectives are to be pursued), 1.4(a)(1) and (3), 1.15(a) 
(requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients separate from the lawyer’s own 
property), 1.15(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver funds or other property 
that the client is entitled to receive), and 8.4(c), (d), and (h). 
                                                                                                                                     
sentence listing transactions made from respondent’s operating account after she had deposited the 
settlement check.  
January Term, 2011 
7 
 
Count 11 
{¶ 18} Count 11 arises from respondent’s criminal defense of a husband 
and wife facing federal drug charges.  Respondent represented the husband in the 
appeal of his conviction on charges of possession of crack cocaine with the intent 
to distribute.  She also represented his wife as she was investigated and indicted 
on charges including conspiracy to distribute cocaine with her husband – charges 
for which the husband was designated as an unindicted coconspirator. 
{¶ 19} The Assistant United States Attorney who prosecuted the wife 
testified that she had offered to seek a reduction of the husband’s mandatory life 
sentence if he would testify against his wife – an offer that remained open 
throughout respondent’s representation – and had expressed concern regarding 
respondent’s dual representation.  Respondent rejected the offer and maintained 
that despite their differing interests, the couple had consented to the joint 
representation.  In the wife’s case, however, the court issued an order 
disqualifying respondent and later rejected respondent’s challenge to that 
determination, stating that respondent “cannot adequately represent and defend 
[the wife] against those allegations while also representing [the husband].” 
{¶ 20} Based upon these facts, the panel and board determined that 
respondent could not have ethically advised both the husband and wife.  
Therefore, they concluded that respondent’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.7 
(prohibiting a lawyer from accepting or continuing the representation of a client if 
such representation would create a conflict of interest except in certain limited 
circumstances) and 8.4(d) and (h). 
Count 13 
{¶ 21} The panel and board found that from August 8 through December 
11, 2007, respondent maintained a client trust account at Charter One Bank.  She 
commingled personal funds with client funds by depositing earned fees and 
personal funds into the client trust account, and she used it as a personal account.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
She also failed to maintain proper records for the client trust account.  Moreover, 
from December 12, 2007, to February 17, 2009, she did not maintain a client trust 
account at all, although she received funds that should have been deposited into 
such an account. 
{¶ 22} Respondent admitted that she did not properly handle her client 
trust account.  She claimed, however, that she was a new lawyer who had never 
been instructed how to handle a client trust account or advised of the account’s 
importance. 
{¶ 23} Based upon the foregoing, the panel and board found by clear and 
convincing evidence that respondent had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a),  (b) 
(permitting a lawyer to deposit his or her own funds in a client trust account only 
for the purpose of paying or obtaining a waiver of bank-service charges), and (c). 
Counts 12, 14, and 15 
{¶ 24} Counts 12, 14, and 15 relate to respondent’s handling of three 
separate bankruptcy proceedings. 
{¶ 25} In April 2008, a husband and wife retained respondent to file a 
petition for bankruptcy.  Respondent never filed the petition and failed to notify 
them when the bankruptcy court suspended her license in August 2008.  When the 
couple had difficulty reaching respondent, they filed complaints with the 
Cleveland Bar Association, Better Business Bureau, and small claims court.  
Respondent refunded their legal fees in December 2008. 
{¶ 26} In the remaining counts, respondent filed the clients’ bankruptcy 
proceedings, but they were dismissed when she failed to file all the required 
documents, failed to comply with notices instructing her to correct her filings, and 
failed to appear at the resulting show-cause hearings.  Despite respondent’s 
failures, she falsely advised one client that his failure to furnish certain documents 
caused the dismissal of his bankruptcy proceeding.  And although respondent 
January Term, 2011 
9 
 
refiled the other client’s bankruptcy, that case was also dismissed when she failed 
to file an electronic filing declaration. 
{¶ 27} Additionally, the evidence demonstrates that these clients had 
difficulty reaching respondent to discuss their cases.  And she has not refunded 
any portion of the $850 paid by the couple in count 14 or the $749 paid on behalf 
of the client in count 15. 
{¶ 28} The panel and board found that by engaging in this conduct, 
respondent has committed one violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (a lawyer shall 
provide competent representation to a client), three violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 
three violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3), two violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), 
and two violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d). 
Sanction 
{¶ 29} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
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 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 30} Although the panel and board observed that respondent has not 
been the subject of any prior disciplinary proceedings, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a), they expressed their belief that this factor should not be considered 
mitigating in light of respondent’s brief tenure as an attorney.  They noted that 
respondent had been practicing law for less than two years when relator began his 
investigation into multiple instances of her alleged misconduct. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
{¶ 31} Similarly, the panel and board rejected respondent’s claims that 
she had cooperated in the disciplinary process.  Indeed, the evidence demonstrates 
that respondent never filed an answer to the original complaint, although she did 
file a motion seeking dismissal of some of the counts; failed to claim or respond 
to her mail, including correspondence and discovery requests from relator 
regarding his investigation; did not provide relator or the panel with a list of her 
witnesses until the first day of the panel hearing; and although properly notified, 
failed to appear for her second deposition.  Thus, despite some participation in the 
disciplinary process, respondent did not demonstrate a cooperative attitude toward 
the proceedings.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d). 
{¶ 32} Likewise, respondent’s claimed depression does not qualify as a 
mitigating factor.  This is because other than her own testimony, there is no 
evidence that her depression has been diagnosed by a qualified medical 
professional, that it contributed to cause the misconduct, that she has completed a 
sustained period of successful treatment, or that she will be able to return to the 
competent, ethical, and professional practice of law.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(g)(i) through (iv).  To the contrary, her contract with the Ohio Lawyers 
Assistance Program (“OLAP”) was terminated for noncompliance. 
{¶ 33} In contrast, the panel and board found that most of the aggravating 
factors set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) are present.  Respondent has 
exhibited a selfish and dishonest motive by submitting false poverty affidavits and 
settling a client’s case without his knowledge or consent, then using the 
settlement proceeds for her own benefit.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b).  She has 
engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d). 
{¶ 34} Although respondent offered some cooperation in the early stages 
of relator’s investigation, by the time relator filed his complaint, that cooperation 
gave way to avoidance and denial.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e).  While she 
January Term, 2011 
11 
 
submitted an affidavit averring that she had signed poverty affidavits on behalf of 
two clients as their attorneys in fact, she later testified that she thought the clients 
had signed the documents and acknowledged that the information contained in her 
affidavit was “incorrect.”  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(f).  She claimed that 
she was unable to obtain her voicemail messages or contact her clients for several 
weeks in November 2008, when she experienced an extended power outage at her 
office, but admitted that she had never attempted to access them remotely.  See id. 
{¶ 35} Respondent has also failed to acknowledge the wrongfulness of her 
conduct and has caused harm to vulnerable clients.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(g) and (h).  She contends that she did nothing wrong when she filed 
false and fraudulent poverty affidavits because the courts did not rely upon them, 
and appears to believe that refunding her clients’ money somehow rectifies her 
misconduct.  She does not appreciate the conflict of interest created by her dual 
representation of clients in related criminal proceedings, and continues to blame 
her clients for the dismissal of their bankruptcy proceedings, despite the fact that 
the dismissal entries clearly identify her filing errors as the reason for the 
dismissals.  And while respondent acknowledged that she mishandled her client 
trust account, she seeks to deflect blame for her conduct by claiming that she had 
never been taught about the proper handling of the account. 
{¶ 36} Before the panel hearing, respondent stipulated that she did not 
notify a client that a settlement offer had been made in his case and did not 
receive the client’s authorization to accept the offer, but that she signed the 
release as a witness to the signature purporting to be that of her client, sent the 
executed release to opposing counsel, and deposited the settlement check into her 
operating account.  Yet at the hearing, she attempted to disavow her actions by 
testifying that she had “learned that [the client’s case] was settled” and that she 
was “just taking full responsibility” for the events that had transpired with respect 
to that client.  Not only has respondent failed to provide any restitution to the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
client since she settled his case in June 2008, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(i), 
she continues to claim that she is entitled to one-third of the proceeds of the 
unauthorized settlement. 
{¶ 37} At the hearing, relator argued that an indefinite suspension is the 
appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct, but stated that he would not 
object to permanent disbarment.  Respondent, however, argued in favor of a 
suspension of no more than two years with 18 months stayed on conditions. 
{¶ 38} Citing its belief that respondent suffers from some type of mental 
disability and that she could be rehabilitated, the panel recommends that 
respondent be indefinitely suspended and that we place certain conditions on any 
future reinstatement.  While the board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and 
conclusions of law, based upon respondent’s “extraordinary record of 
misconduct,” the board recommends that we permanently disbar her from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Respondent has not challenged the board’s findings of 
misconduct or the recommended sanction of permanent disbarment. 
{¶ 39} We have consistently recognized that the presumptive disciplinary 
sanction for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment.  See, e.g. Lorain Cty. 
Bar Assn. v. Fernandez, 99 Ohio St.3d 426, 2003-Ohio-4078, 793 N.E.2d 434, ¶ 
9; Disciplinary Counsel v. France, 97 Ohio St.3d 240, 2002-Ohio-5945, 778 
N.E.2d 573, ¶ 11; Disciplinary Counsel v. Wherry (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 584, 
587, 722 N.E.2d 515.  Although this presumption may be overcome by sufficient 
evidence of mitigating or extenuating circumstances, no such circumstances are 
present in this case.  See, e.g., Dayton Bar Assn. v. Gerren, 103 Ohio St.3d 21, 
2004-Ohio-4110, 812 N.E.2d 1280, ¶ 14, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 
101 Ohio St.3d 27, 2003-Ohio-6623, 800 N.E.2d 1129.  On the contrary, 
misappropriation of client funds is just one of 48 violations of the Ohio Rules of 
Professional Conduct.  Respondent’s inability or unwillingness to recognize the 
seriousness of her actions coupled with the nature and sheer volume of her 
January Term, 2011 
13 
 
misconduct demonstrates a lack of integrity and candor that is essential to the 
competent, ethical, and professional practice of law. 
{¶ 40} Having considered respondent’s conduct, the aggravating factors, 
the absence of mitigating factors, and our precedent, we adopt the board’s 
findings of fact and conclusions of law and conclude that the appropriate sanction 
for respondent’s misconduct is permanent disbarment. 
{¶ 41} Accordingly, Shondra Collette Longino is hereby permanently 
disbarred from the practice of law in the state of Ohio.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, Lori J. Brown, Chief 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen H. Osmond, for relator. 
Shondra Collette Longino, pro se. 
______________________