Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stebbins

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. STEBBINS. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Stebbins (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with entire suspension 
stayed — Misappropriating client funds. 
(No. 98-2222 — Submitted December 16, 1998 — Decided March 3, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-101. 
 
In December 1996, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging respondent, Theodore Stebbins of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0023658, with violating several Disciplinary Rules in connection 
with his handling of a personal injury claim.  After respondent filed an answer, a 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 
Supreme Court (“board”) conducted a hearing on the matter. 
 
Based on the admissions in respondent’s answer and the testimony 
introduced at the hearing, the panel found that Janyce Anderson retained 
respondent to represent her in a personal injury matter arising from a January 1987 
automobile accident.  In September 1989, respondent settled Anderson’s personal 
injury claims for $20,000.  As agreed by respondent and Anderson, respondent 
withheld $4,762.10 of the settlement, which Anderson instructed respondent to 
use to pay the medical bills that she had incurred for treatment of her injuries. 
 
Respondent, however, failed to use the money to pay Anderson’s medical 
bills.  Instead, he deposited the money into his personal bank account.  In 1995, 
Anderson began receiving medical bills for the expenses that she had instructed 
respondent to pay.  When she inquired about these bills, respondent assured her 
that they had been paid. 
 
2
 
In September 1995, Anderson filed a lawsuit to recover the money 
respondent had retained.  In December 1995, the case was settled, and respondent 
paid Anderson $5,612.10, which included the full amount of Anderson’s unpaid 
medical bills, as well as attorney fees and court costs incurred by Anderson in 
instituting the suit. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(6) 
(engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 6-
101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 9-102(B)(3) (failing to maintain 
complete records of all client funds coming into lawyer’s possession and render 
appropriate accounts to client regarding them), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to 
promptly pay to the client upon request funds in the possession of the lawyer that 
the client is entitled to receive). 
 
The panel found in mitigation that respondent’s misconduct was an isolated 
incident in an otherwise unblemished and distinguished legal career; that he had a 
reputation as an able attorney and truthful person; that he had experienced severe 
health problems during some of this period, eventually leading to his receiving a 
liver transplant; and that he regularly attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.  
The panel also emphasized that respondent had made restitution to Anderson; that 
he was remorseful; and that because of numerous office moves during the 
pertinent period, he lost files and did not receive many of the bills sent by 
Anderson’s medical providers. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the panel recommended that respondent be publicly 
reprimanded.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation 
of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
3
 
Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton & Norman and Timothy J. Fitzgerald; Gold, 
Rotatori & Schwartz Co., L.P.A., and Brian P. Downey, for relator. 
 
Bernard, Haffey & Bohnert Co., L.P.A., and J. Ross Haffey, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board.  
Nevertheless, we disagree with the board’s recommended sanction that respondent 
be publicly reprimanded. 
 
Respondent misappropriated client funds by placing settlement proceeds 
that he had agreed to use to pay his client’s medical providers into his personal 
bank account for a period of over six years.  In general, “[t]he continuing public 
confidence in the judicial system and the bar requires that the strictest discipline, 
[i.e., disbarment] be imposed in misappropriation cases.”  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Belock (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 694 N.E.2d 897, 899. 
 
Although we agree that the mitigating factors, i.e., restitution, no pattern of 
misconduct, and no evidence of deliberate conversion of client funds by 
respondent, warrant a lesser penalty than disbarment, we believe that the sanction 
should be more severe than a public reprimand.  In other cases involving 
violations of DR 9-102(B)(3) and 9-102(B)(4) in which mitigating factors existed, 
we have imposed a one-year suspension or a one-year-stayed suspension.  See 
Erie-Huron Counties Joint Certified Grievance Commt. v. Miles (1996), 76 Ohio 
St.3d 574, 669 N.E.2d 831 (mitigating evidence included character testimony, 
evidence that misconduct was limited to two incidents, and agreement to provide 
restitution); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Warren (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 334, 612 
N.E.2d 1223.  Accordingly, we suspend respondent from the practice of law for 
one year, with the entire suspension stayed.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
4
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  I would suspend the respondent from the practice of 
law for one year. 
 
MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.