Case Title: Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Commt. v. Meyerhoefer

Citation: 2003-Ohio-2467

Docket Number: 20030397

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Commt. v. Meyerhoefer, 99 Ohio St.3d 
62, 2003-Ohio-2467.] 
 
 
ERIE-HURON COUNTIES JOINT CERTIFIED GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE v. 
MEYERHOEFER. 
[Cite as Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Commt. v. 
Meyerhoefer, 99 Ohio St.3d 62, 2003-Ohio-2467.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Engaging in illegal 
conduct involving moral turpitude — Engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Collecting an illegal or 
clearly excessive fee — Neglecting an entrusted legal matter — 
Intentionally failing to carry out employment contract — Intentionally 
prejudicing or damaging client during course of professional relationship 
— Failing to promptly pay or deliver funds to client upon request. 
(No. 2003-0397 — Submitted April 16, 2003 — Decided May 16, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-81. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In 1995, an elderly woman executed a durable general power of 
attorney in which she appointed respondent, Paul F. Meyerhoefer of Norwalk, 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0029461, her attorney-in-fact.  The power of 
attorney did not authorize respondent to transfer the woman’s assets to himself. 
{¶2} 
In July 2000, respondent wrote a check for $3,000 to himself from 
the woman’s checking account.  On July 31, 2000, respondent repaid the money 
plus interest to the account after a law firm associate confronted him about 
writing the check. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
In January 2001, the woman died and her estate’s executor retained 
respondent as the attorney for the estate.  In August 2001, without court approval 
or filing a final account, respondent took $18,000 from the estate for his attorney 
fees.  The probate court subsequently ordered respondent to repay the money to 
the estate and ultimately determined that he was not entitled to any attorney fees.  
Respondent has not repaid the $18,000 to the estate, and he does not have the 
money to do so. 
{¶4} 
Respondent was also successor trustee of a trust that was created 
for the benefit of the elderly woman during her lifetime and that terminated upon 
her death, with the principal then to be divided among the remaining 
beneficiaries.  Despite repeated requests from one of the trust beneficiaries, 
respondent failed to distribute the assets until approximately 16 months after the 
decedent’s death.  At one point during this period, respondent falsely advised a 
trust beneficiary that he had already made the distributions. 
{¶5} 
In addition, respondent failed to file the elderly woman’s income 
tax returns for 1999 and 2000.  Respondent lied in his testimony before the 
probate court about filing the 1999 and 2000 income tax returns.  Furthermore, 
during respondent’s appointment as attorney for her estate, he failed to file an 
estate tax return. 
{¶6} 
On July 3, 2002, relator, Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified 
Grievance Committee, filed an amended complaint charging respondent with 
having violated several Disciplinary Rules.  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court heard the 
matter upon the testimony and exhibits offered by the parties. 
{¶7} 
The panel found the facts as previously set forth and concluded 
that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct 
involving moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct 
January Term, 2003 
3 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 2-106(A) (collecting an 
illegal or clearly excessive fee), 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal 
matter), 7-101(A)(2) (intentionally failing to carry out an employment contract), 
7-101(A)(3) (intentionally prejudicing or damaging client), and 9-102(B)(4) 
(failing to promptly pay or deliver funds to client upon request). 
{¶8} 
In mitigation, the panel found that respondent suffered from 
depression exacerbated by his divorce, which left him to care for a son who also 
suffers from mental illness.  The panel further found that respondent is receiving 
psychiatric treatment for his depression and that respondent is giving up the 
practice of law. 
{¶9} 
Relator recommended that respondent receive only an indefinite 
suspension from the practice of law in Ohio because it believed that respondent 
had 
legitimate 
mental-health 
issues. 
 
The 
panel 
accepted 
relator’s 
recommendation.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel and further recommended that the costs of the 
proceedings be taxed to respondent. 
{¶10} We agree with the recommended sanction.  “Disbarment is 
ordinarily the sanction when an attorney’s misconduct permeates his practice in 
the way that respondent’s misconduct did in this case.”  Richland Cty. Bar Assn. 
v. Brickley, 97 Ohio St.3d 285, 2002-Ohio-6416, 779 N.E.2d 750, ¶ 24 (violations 
included DR 1-102[A][4], 1-102[A][5], 1-102[A][6], 6-101[A][3], 7-101[A][3], 
and 9-102[B][4]); see, also, Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Glatki (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 
381, 384, 726 N.E.2d 993 (“As we have consistently held, the normal sanction for 
misappropriation of client funds coupled with neglect of client matters is 
disbarment”).  But we have adopted a board’s recommendation of a lesser 
sanction when sufficient mitigating factors are present.  Brickley, 97 Ohio St.3d 
285, 2002-Ohio-6416, 779 N.E.2d 750, at ¶ 24. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶11} The lesser sanction of an indefinite suspension is appropriate here 
because of respondent’s mental illness.  Id. at ¶ 22, 25 (indefinite suspension 
imposed where mitigation included board’s determination that respondent’s 
misconduct stemmed in part from depression); Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Gay 
(1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 190, 625 N.E.2d 593 (misconduct warranted indefinite 
suspension when mitigated by clinical depression and substance abuse). 
{¶12} Based on the foregoing, respondent is hereby indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG 
STRATTON and O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
 
__________________ 
 
James J. Martin and Richard B. Hauser, for relator. 
 
Paul F. Meyerhoefer, pro se. 
__________________