Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Baldwin

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Baldwin. 
1 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Baldwin (1996), ____ Ohio St.3d ______.] 
2 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Acquiring a 
3 
proprietary interest in cause or subject of client litigation. 
4 
(No.  95-2529--Submitted January 24, 1996--Decided February 28, 1996.) 
5 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
6 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-59B. 
7 
 
In a single-count complaint filed on June 27, 1995, relator, Office of 
8 
Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent, Steven R. Baldwin of Zanesville, 
9 
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0004777, with a violation of DR 5-103(A) 
10 
(acquiring a proprietary interest in cause or subject of client litigation).  In a 
11 
stipulation filed that same day, respondent admitted every allegation in 
12 
relator’s complaint.  The parties stipulated that respondent and his counsel 
13 
cooperated fully with relator’s investigation.  Further, as a result of 
14 
negotiations between respondent and new counsel for his former client, his 
15 
client ultimately received a net benefit as a result of respondent’s violation. 
16 
 
On October 19, 1995, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
17 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court held a hearing on the 
18 
matter.  The complaint, stipulations, and evidence established that 
1 
respondent was admitted to the Ohio Bar in 1983 and practices in 
2 
Zanesville.  In April 1988, respondent represented Ivor M. Rusk, Jr. 
3 
(“Rusk”), who owned a partial interest in real estate on Orchard Street in 
4 
Zanesville.  Various creditors of Rusk had secured liens against Rusk’s 
5 
interest in this real estate.  That month, Rusk filed for partition of the 
6 
Orchard property so that debts could be paid from the sale proceeds.  Rusk 
7 
secured other counsel to actively handle the partition litigation, but 
8 
respondent was co-counsel in that partition action.  The total time 
9 
respondent expended in that partition action involved less than two and one-
10 
half hours. 
11 
 
On three separate occasions, the Orchard property was offered for 
12 
sale at public auction, but not sold.  At the fourth auction, respondent 
13 
purchased the property.  Subsequently, respondent secured financing and, 
14 
following improvements, leased the property to the county for ten years.  In 
15 
fact, respondent had shown the property to county officials before the sale 
16 
to determine whether the property might be suitable for county needs. 
17 
 
When respondent purchased the property, he still represented Rusk, 
1 
but he never advised his client, or the other cotenants, that he was bidding 
2 
on the property or that the county might be interested in leasing the 
3 
property.  In November 1992, over two years after the sale, Rusk, through 
4 
new counsel, demanded that respondent deed the property and assign the 
5 
county lease to Rusk.  In May 1993, through an agreement, respondent 
6 
transferred the property and assigned the county’s lease to a corporation 
7 
designated by Rusk.  In return, respondent was to receive twenty-five 
8 
percent of the monthly rentals for five years as a finder’s fee.  In an 
9 
affidavit, Rusk asserted that he thought respondent was negligent.  Rusk, 
10 
however, believed that “at no time” did respondent “willfully or deliberately 
11 
act to consciously cause me harm or financial detriment” by his purchase of 
12 
the Orchard street property. 
13 
 
The panel concluded that respondent violated DR 5-103(A) when he 
14 
acquired a proprietary interest in property that was the subject of his client’s 
15 
litigation without informing his client of this interest.  In mitigation, the 
16 
panel considered a joint letter from the presiding common pleas judge and a 
17 
retired judge declaring respondent “to be honest, competent and, above all 
18 
else, ethical in his conduct as a lawyer.”  Further, an assistant prosecuting 
1 
attorney described respondent as a “man of high morals, integrity and 
2 
honesty” both professionally and personally.  A fellow attorney also wrote 
3 
favorably of respondent’s integrity and professionalism. 
4 
 
Relator recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded, and 
5 
the panel agreed.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, 
6 
conclusions of law, and recommendation. 
7 
____________________________________ 
8 
 
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Harald F. Craig III, 
9 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
10 
 
Frank J. Micheli, for respondent. 
11 
_____________________________________ 
12 
 
Per Curiam.  We agree with the board’s findings and 
13 
recommendation.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.  
14 
Costs taxed to respondent. 
15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
16 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
17 
and COOK, JJ., concur. 
18