Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Quatman

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Quatman, 108 Ohio St.3d 389, 2006-Ohio-1196.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. QUATMAN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Quatman, 
108 Ohio St.3d 389, 2006-Ohio-1196.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s 
fitness to practice law — One-year suspension stayed on conditions and 
two years’ probation. 
(No. 2005-1531 — Submitted December 14, 2005 — Decided March 29, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-040. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, George Bernard Quatman of Lima, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0008117, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1972. 
{¶ 2} On August 9, 2004, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging respondent with professional misconduct.  Respondent filed an answer 
to the complaint, and a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline held a hearing on the complaint in May 2005.  With one member 
dissenting, the panel then prepared written findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and a recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} According to the testimony of Deanna Entinghe, she met 
respondent in 1999 when she sought his legal advice about a personal-injury 
matter.  She was satisfied with his advice and did not meet with him again about 
that issue. 
{¶ 4} In 2003, Entinghe made another appointment with respondent to 
discuss a domestic-relations matter.  She went to respondent’s law office in Lima 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
at the appointed time on the morning of July 2, 2003, but discovered when she 
arrived that the lights were out in the office due to an electrical problem.  
Respondent, his secretary, and Entinghe bantered for a few minutes about the 
power outage, and then he asked the secretary to run an errand. 
{¶ 5} Respondent and Entinghe agreed to discuss her legal problem in 
the law firm’s reception area, which was well lit by natural light, rather than 
meeting in respondent’s office, which respondent said was dark.  The two of them 
sat on a couch in the reception area, and Entinghe began to explain that she was 
seeking a divorce.  She described her husband’s drinking problem, and she told 
respondent that her own health problems had prompted her husband to abuse 
alcohol.  Respondent asked questions about those health problems, and Entinghe 
explained to him that she had undergone seven or eight experimental operations in 
which pain pacemakers had been inserted in her body to alleviate back pain. 
{¶ 6} During their conversation, Entinghe used her hands to point to 
various scars on her back from surgical incisions.  Then, according to Entinghe, 
respondent touched the portion of her shirt that was covering her pacemakers.  
She was shocked and started backing away because she noticed a strange look on 
respondent’s face that made her uncomfortable.  Respondent then put his hands 
on her breasts for a few seconds and said, “You have very nice breasts.” 
{¶ 7} Entinghe stepped back, feeling sick and disgusted.  She headed for 
the door and recalls that respondent said, “I’ll see you next Tuesday” as she was 
leaving.  Entinghe ran out the door, entered her car, and drove away at high speed.  
Once home, she telephoned her mother and told her what had just happened.  She 
also told her sister.  The following day, she hired another attorney to represent her 
in her legal separation. 
{¶ 8} In September 2003, Entinghe told both her attorney and her 
husband about the incident that had occurred in respondent’s office two months 
January Term, 2006 
3 
earlier.  Her attorney and her husband’s attorney urged her to file a grievance 
against respondent, and she did so in November 2003. 
{¶ 9} After the grievance was filed, relator sent a letter of inquiry to 
respondent, and he provided his reply in a letter dated January 6, 2004.  In that 
letter, respondent stated, “Although I barely remember the incident with Mrs. 
Entinghe, my secretary and I recall that she came in for a short appointment, free 
consultation, to my office some months ago.  She appeared to be very agitated and 
upset and upon attempting to calm her down, she advised me that she was 
disabled because of some sort of medical implants which to my shock and 
surprise she displayed to me.” 
{¶ 10} Attorney Geoffrey Stern then sent a letter dated January 9, 2004, to 
relator on respondent’s behalf.  In that letter, attorney Stern stated that Entinghe 
had displayed her medical implants to respondent.  According to the letter, 
respondent “did not ask her to make such a display, nor did he touch her in any 
manner, including but not limited to her false allegations that he put both hands 
‘on [her] pacemaker in [her] tummy’ and ‘took ahold of both [her] breasts.’ ” 
{¶ 11} On June 7, 2004, Stern sent relator a letter prepared by Michael D. 
Schafer, a clinical psychologist, who began treating respondent after he was 
hospitalized in February 2004 for acute intoxication and seizures.  According to 
Schafer’s letter, respondent had described to him a long history of alcohol use, 
including what Schafer cited as the “classic symptoms of alcohol addiction.”  
Schafer also stated that respondent had reported experiencing periods of memory 
impairment known as “blackouts.” 
{¶ 12} In a follow-up letter dated July 27, 2004, Dr. Schafer stated that he 
was providing outpatient therapy to respondent for an alcohol problem, and he 
explained that respondent had told him that the alleged incident involving 
Entinghe had occurred at a time when respondent was “actively drinking, 
including drinking at work, during working hours.”  The letter added that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
respondent recalled drinking on the day of the incident, but had only a “sketchy” 
memory of his meeting with Entinghe.  Schafer confirmed this account at his 
deposition in May 2005. 
{¶ 13} Respondent disputed this account, however, when he testified at 
his disciplinary hearing in May 2005.  He told the panel that Dr. Schafer must 
have misinterpreted his remarks during therapy or made up the information in his 
report, because alcohol played no part in the incident with Entinghe.  According 
to respondent, he never told Dr. Schafer that he had been actively drinking or 
drinking at work at the time of the incident, or that he had been drinking that day.  
Respondent also told the panel that he could accurately recall the events of July 2, 
2003, and he said that his memory of that day had improved over time. 
{¶ 14} Respondent acknowledged at his disciplinary hearing in May 2005 
that he had said, “You have nice breasts” to Entinghe in his office on July 2, 
2003.  He characterized the remark as one designed to make her feel good.  
Respondent denied touching Entinghe’s breasts, although he qualified that remark 
by saying that he could not remember whether he had “brushed” her breast, 
adding that he doubted he had “touched” her breast.  He also testified that 
Entinghe had unbuttoned her blouse, grabbed his hand, and placed it on the lower 
part of her rib cage. 
{¶ 15} This version of events was much more detailed than the 
explanation in respondent’s January 6, 2004, letter to relator, in which he had 
written that he could “barely remember the incident.”  And attorney Stern’s letter 
dated January 9, 2004, on respondent’s behalf had advised relator that respondent 
had not touched Entinghe “in any manner.”  Moreover, when respondent met with 
representatives from relator’s office in May 2004, he never told them that 
Entinghe had grabbed his hand and had placed it on her pacemakers or her rib 
cage.  His explanation:  He did not remember that fact in May 2004, but did 
remember it at his May 2005 disciplinary hearing. 
January Term, 2006 
5 
{¶ 16} The board found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(6) 
(barring conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Sanction 
{¶ 17} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  As 
aggravating factors, the board found that respondent had displayed a selfish 
motive by seeking personal gratification during his meeting with Entinghe, had 
submitted false statements and engaged in deceptive practices during the 
disciplinary process, and had caused harm to a vulnerable victim.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (f), and (h). 
{¶ 18} The board also cited two mitigating factors: the absence of a prior 
disciplinary record and respondent’s strong character evidence.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a) and (e).  Letters submitted to the board on respondent’s behalf 
described him as a professional of “high integrity and character” and as someone 
whose conduct has always been “appropriate in all circumstances.” 
{¶ 19} The panel did not view respondent’s alcohol problem as a 
mitigating factor, concluding that he had inappropriately tried to use that problem 
as an excuse for his behavior.  According to the panel majority, respondent’s 
testimony showed that he is not committed to the Alcoholics Anonymous 
treatment program and participates in it only casually.  There is no evidence in the 
record establishing that respondent has successfully completed an approved 
alcohol-treatment program, and he in fact left an inpatient treatment program 
before the program was finished.  The record also contains no prognosis from a 
qualified health-care professional or counselor about the likelihood of 
respondent’s ability to maintain a competent and professional legal practice.  
Absent those two elements, the requirements for mitigation under BCGD 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g) have not been met in this case.  In any event, respondent 
himself testified at his disciplinary hearing that alcohol played no part in the 
incident with Entinghe (although he had suggested otherwise during the early 
stages of relator’s investigation). 
{¶ 20} Relator recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for six months, and the panel majority and the full board adopted 
that recommendation.  The dissenting panel member found that the allegations 
against respondent had not been proven by the requisite clear and convincing 
evidence.  The case is now before us on respondent’s objections to the board’s 
recommendation. 
{¶ 21} We have reviewed the board’s report and have also considered the 
written and oral arguments presented by the parties in response to that report.  We 
accept the board’s factual findings and legal conclusion, although we disagree 
with the board’s recommended sanction. 
{¶ 22} Respondent disputes Entinghe’s version of the facts, but the panel 
members – who were in the best position to evaluate the differing stories told by 
respondent and Entinghe – found his testimony to be “far less credible” than hers.  
After hearing and seeing two days of testimony, two of the three panel members 
found clear and convincing evidence supporting relator’s allegation that 
respondent had inappropriately touched Entinghe’s breasts, that he had made an 
inappropriate comment to her, and that he had misrepresented his memory about 
the incident while citing alcohol use as an excuse for his behavior during relator’s 
investigation.  The evidence in the record supports the panel’s and the board’s 
findings on these issues. 
{¶ 23} The legal conclusion that this misconduct violated DR 1-102(A)(6) 
is sound.  The physical contact, coupled with the inappropriate remark about 
Entinghe’s breasts, was unethical and unprofessional.  Respondent’s words and 
actions reflected poorly on the legal profession and represented a betrayal of the 
January Term, 2006 
7 
trust of a vulnerable client.  The panel noted that Entinghe remained under the 
influence of the emotional trauma nearly two years after the incident had 
occurred. 
{¶ 24} A stayed one-year suspension coupled with a two-year 
probationary period is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct.  See 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Moore, 101 Ohio St.3d 261, 2004-Ohio-734, 804 N.E.2d 
423 (imposing a stayed one-year suspension and two years’ probation on an 
attorney who had made unsolicited and inappropriate sexual comments to a client 
and had engaged in consensual sexual relations with another client). 
{¶ 25} Respondent cited alcohol abuse as a factor in his inability to 
respond fully to the grievance initially, and perhaps as a factor in the misconduct 
itself.  Yet the panel that observed his testimony discounted alcohol abuse as a 
cause of the incident and faulted respondent for initially relying on that abuse as 
an excuse for his actions and for his inability to provide a full and accurate 
accounting of the incident.  We take seriously the panel’s concerns about 
respondent’s truthfulness surrounding his alcohol use and about the incident itself, 
but those concerns must be balanced against the multiple letters and testimony in 
the record attesting to respondent’s truthfulness and good character.  We conclude 
that a stayed suspension and a two-year probationary period will protect the 
public by providing an appropriate avenue for respondent to secure the alcohol-
related counseling that he appears to need. 
{¶ 26} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for one year, with the entire suspension stayed provided that 
respondent commit no further misconduct during the suspension period.  In 
addition, respondent is placed on probation for a period of two years in 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9).  While on probation, respondent must (1) 
continue to undergo alcohol-related counseling in a program approved by the 
Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program at respondent’s own expense and (2) attend at 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
least four hours of training annually, at a course or courses approved by relator, 
on the prevention of sexual harassment.  If respondent fails to comply with either 
of these conditions, the stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire 
one-year suspension.  Relator must appoint one or more monitoring attorneys to 
track respondent’s compliance with these terms of probation.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
RESNICK, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in judgment only. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents and would suspend respondent from the practice of 
law for six months. 
 
MOYER, C.J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Carlile Patchen & Murphy, L.L.P., and H. Ritchey Hollenbaugh; George 
B. Quatman III, for respondent. 
______________________