Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Karris

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Karris, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4243.] 
 
 
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-4243 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. KARRIS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Karris,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4243.] 
Attorney misconduct, including engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation — Six-month suspension. 
(No. 2010-1898 — Submitted March 1, 2011 — Decided September 1, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No.  09-102. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Tom John Karris of Strongsville, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0033659, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1982. 
{¶ 2} On December 7, 2009, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a two-
count complaint alleging that respondent had committed professional misconduct 
by improperly notarizing signatures on four documents and falsely testifying 
about it during a deposition. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 3} The board found clear and convincing evidence that respondent had 
engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and 
conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law by improperly 
notarizing documents on three separate occasions.  Based upon this misconduct, 
the board recommends that we publicly reprimand respondent.  Finding that the 
record contains insufficient evidence to clearly and convincingly prove that 
respondent made false statements to a tribunal, however, the board recommends 
that we dismiss count two of relator’s complaint. 
{¶ 4} Relator objects to the board’s recommended sanction.  Citing 
respondent’s multiple fraudulent notarizations, the presence of several 
aggravating factors, and the absence of substantial mitigating evidence, relator 
asks that we suspend respondent from the practice of law for six months.  We 
sustain relator’s objection and suspend respondent from the practice of law in 
Ohio for six months. 
Misconduct 
Count One 
{¶ 5} The board found that in 1999, one of respondent’s clients began to 
lend money to another man (“borrower”) to use in his catering business.  In 2000, 
the client engaged respondent to prepare documents to protect his investment, and 
respondent prepared a promissory note, secured by a mortgage on property that 
the borrower and his wife owned in Columbia Station, Ohio, as well as a 
quitclaim deed on that property to be held in escrow. 
{¶ 6} On January 26, 2000, the promissory note, in the principal amount 
of $35,000, was purportedly executed by the borrower and his wife and then 
witnessed and notarized by respondent.  On January 31, 2000, the borrower and 
his wife purportedly executed and respondent notarized the mortgage and 
quitclaim deed.  The mortgage deed was filed with the Lorain County Recorder 
on February 10, 2000. 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
{¶ 7} Although it does not appear that the borrower was making any 
payments on the loans, the client continued to lend him additional funds.  On 
January 30, 2001, the borrower and his wife purportedly executed a land contract 
for the Columbia Station property, identifying themselves as purchasers and the 
client as the vendor.  Respondent notarized the signatures and then forwarded the 
land contract and quitclaim deed to the Lorain County Recorder for filing, but the 
instruments were returned due to pending litigation against the real property.  The 
quitclaim deed was eventually recorded on August 28, 2002. 
{¶ 8} At the hearing, the panel heard conflicting testimony regarding the 
execution of the promissory note, mortgage deed, quitclaim deed, and land 
contract prepared by respondent.  Both the borrower and his wife, who had 
divorced in 2003, testified that the wife had not signed any of the documents 
prepared and notarized by respondent.  The borrower testified that he had signed 
his wife’s name to those instruments, although he had previously executed an 
affidavit in another legal proceeding stating that both he and his wife had signed 
the quitclaim deed and the mortgage.  Respondent testified that the borrower’s 
wife had signed the instruments in his presence.  Another client of respondent’s, 
who was also the husband of the first client’s niece, testified that he had been 
present when the borrower and his wife signed the instruments.  Although 
respondent’s secretary purportedly witnessed the signing of the documents, she 
did not testify at the disciplinary proceeding. 
{¶ 9} Rebecca Barrett, a forensic document examiner for the Ohio Bureau 
of Criminal Identification and Investigation, testified that the signatures 
purporting to be that of the borrower’s wife on the instruments in question were 
not, in fact, her signatures.  Based upon her analysis of the documents, she 
testified that there is “a high degree of certainty” that the signatures are in the 
borrower’s hand. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 10} On these facts, the board found that respondent had violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice 
law).  We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Count Two 
{¶ 11} As a third-party defendant in an action brought by his client against 
the borrower, respondent was deposed in 2007.  At that time, he testified that the 
instruments in question had been signed in his presence by someone purporting to 
be the borrower’s wife and that he had not requested identification from the 
woman, because his client, the husband of his client’s niece, and the borrower had 
indicated that she was the borrower’s wife. 
{¶ 12} The board acknowledged that respondent’s 2007 deposition 
testimony “may not have been shown to be true based upon the forensic 
evidence” that the borrower’s wife had not signed the instruments.  But the board 
found that given the passage of time and considerable variation in the witness 
testimony regarding the execution of the instruments in question, “[r]espondent 
may well have believed that the events transpired as he related them when he gave 
his deposition testimony in 2007.”  Therefore, the board recommends that we 
dismiss count two based upon the absence of clear and convincing evidence that 
respondent committed the alleged violations.  Neither party objects to this 
recommendation.  We agree that the record does not contain clear and convincing 
evidence to support the misconduct charged in count two of relator’s complaint 
and therefore dismiss count two of relator’s complaint. 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} 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 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
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.   
{¶ 14} As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had 
engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, as he notarized 
the purported signature of the borrower’s wife on three separate occasions.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d).  Also, although respondent agreed to settle 
the borrower’s third-party claims against him for $5,000, he paid only $400 and 
then refused to pay anything more.  Respondent also refused to acknowledge the 
wrongful nature of his conduct, insisting that he had properly notarized the 
documents.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g).  As mitigating factors, the board 
found that respondent did not have a prior disciplinary record and had submitted 
evidence of his good character, including letters from attorneys Carol Shockley 
and Brian M. Richter as well as the testimony of Medina County Common Pleas 
Judge James L. Kimbler and Medina County Prosecuting Attorney Dean Holman, 
attesting to his integrity, excellent character, and good reputation.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (e). 
{¶ 15} Relator sought a one-year suspension for respondent’s misconduct.  
Respondent sought dismissal of both counts of relator’s complaint. 
{¶ 16} Generally, misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law.  See, 
e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Kraemer, 126 Ohio St.3d 163, 2010-Ohio-3300, 931 
N.E.2d 571, ¶ 13; and Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 
187, 658 N.E.2d 237, syllabus.  However, citing Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Dougherty, 105 Ohio St.3d 307, 2005-Ohio-1825, 825 N.E.2d 1094, and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Russell, 114 Ohio St.3d 171, 2007-Ohio-3603, 870 N.E.2d 
1164, the board recommends that we publicly reprimand respondent.  Relator 
objects to this recommendation, arguing that the cases cited by the board are 
factually distinguishable from the facts of this case and that a six-month 
suspension is commensurate with respondent’s misconduct and our precedent. 
{¶ 17} In Dougherty, an attorney violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6) by 
notarizing a purported affiant’s signature on a single document without having 
actually witnessed the signature.  Dougherty, ¶ 4.  Although the attorney’s 
conduct involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, we rejected 
relator’s argument that an 18-month suspension with 12 months stayed was the 
appropriate sanction.  Id. at ¶ 10, 17.  Instead, citing the absence of any evidence 
that the attorney had engaged in a course of conduct designed to deceive and the 
presence of mitigating evidence that included the attorney’s lack of a prior 
disciplinary record, her acknowledgment of her misconduct, her sincere apology, 
and her cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings, we issued a public reprimand.  
Id. at ¶ 11, 17. 
{¶ 18} Similarly, in Russell, an attorney notarized the signatures on two 
deeds transferring real property to his client without having actually witnessed the 
grantors’ signatures.  Russell at ¶ 7, 9.  In imposing the recommended sanction of 
a public reprimand, we observed that Russell (1) had committed the same 
misconduct as Dougherty, (2) had no prior disciplinary offenses in more than 40 
years of practice, (3) had been cooperative and contrite throughout the 
disciplinary process, (4) had paid to rectify the consequences of his misconduct, 
and (5) had established his good character and reputation apart from this single 
lapse of judgment.  Id. at ¶ 11-12. 
{¶ 19} In contrast to Dougherty and Russell, who engaged in single acts of 
misconduct by improperly notarizing one or two documents on a single occasion, 
respondent improperly notarized documents on three separate occasions.  He also 
January Term, 2011 
7 
 
steadfastly refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, 
maintaining throughout the disciplinary proceeding that the borrower’s wife had 
appeared before him and signed the documents — even when confronted with 
forensic evidence that the wife did not sign the documents and that there was a 
high degree of certainty that the borrower had forged his wife’s signature.  In light 
of these aggravating factors, which were not present in Dougherty or Russell, we 
decline to depart from the general rule that offenses involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation require an actual suspension from the practice of law. 
{¶ 20} Accordingly, Tom John Karris is suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for six months.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, 
CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, J., dissents and would suspend respondent for six months, all 
stayed. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Mary L. Cibella, for respondent. 
______________________