Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Allison

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Allison, 98 Ohio St.3d 322, 2003-Ohio-776.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ALLISON. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Allison, 98 Ohio St.3d 322, 2003-Ohio-776.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Engaging in a 
pattern of repeated misconduct similar to behavior for which attorney 
was previously sanctioned — Misconduct occurring while suspended 
from the practice of law. 
(No. 2002-1779 — Submitted January 8, 2003 — Decided March 5, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-06. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Paul Wesley Allison of Fostoria, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0009604, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio on 
November 7, 1970.  On November 8, 2000, we suspended respondent’s license to 
practice law after determining that while serving as attorney for an estate, 
respondent had persuaded the commissioner and fiduciary of the estate to pay him 
legal fees in excess of those authorized by the probate court.  Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Allison (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 296, 737 N.E.2d 955.  We suspended 
respondent for a period of two years but stayed the second year of respondent’s 
suspension upon the condition that he repay the unauthorized fees.  Id. at 297, 737 
N.E.2d 955. 
{¶2} 
On February 4, 2002, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with several violations of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  On March 21, 2002, relator filed an amended complaint adding 
an additional count to the original complaint.  Respondent failed to answer 
relator’s complaint and amended complaint.  Hence, relator filed a motion for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
default, which was referred to a master commissioner.  See Section 8 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.  Based on the complaint, 
the amended complaint, and a deposition of the respondent, the master 
commissioner made the following findings. 
{¶3} 
The allegations of misconduct against respondent originated from 
three separate grievances filed with relator in September 2001, November 2001, 
and February 2002.  In regard to the first grievance, the master commissioner 
found that in July 1999, respondent was appointed the executor of an estate by the 
Seneca County Probate Court.  However, because of respondent’s suspension 
from the practice of law in November 2000, the probate court removed 
respondent and appointed another attorney as administrator and counsel to the 
estate.  An investigation of the estate revealed that respondent had paid himself 
$19,600 in attorney and fiduciary fees although only $4,540.91 had been 
authorized by the probate court.  The probate court ordered respondent to repay 
the estate $15,059.09 plus interest.  The master commissioner determined that 
respondent had not repaid any part of this sum. 
{¶4} 
As a result of respondent’s conduct, the master commissioner 
concluded that respondent had 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 
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 2-106(A) 
(charging an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 9-102(B)(3) (failing to maintain 
client’s funds), and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to promptly pay or deliver client’s funds). 
{¶5} 
A judge of the Fostoria Municipal Court filed the second grievance 
against respondent.  The judge had presided over an eviction hearing on 
November 14, 2001, at which the plaintiff appeared without counsel.  The 
January Term, 2003 
3 
plaintiff informed the court that respondent had prepared the complaint for 
eviction and that plaintiff had paid respondent for his services.  Respondent had 
been suspended from the practice of law since November 8, 2000, and the master 
commissioner determined that respondent had not informed this plaintiff that he 
was under suspension. 
{¶6} 
With respect to the judge’s grievance, the master commissioner 
found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 3-
101(B) (practicing law in violation of the regulations of the profession), and 7-
102(A)(3) (knowingly failing to disclose information to a client as required by 
law). 
{¶7} 
In regard to the third grievance, the master commissioner found 
that in April 2001, while respondent was under suspension from the court, a client 
contacted respondent to handle a bankruptcy.  Respondent had previously 
represented this client on an unrelated matter.  The client completed the necessary 
paperwork to file bankruptcy during a consultation with respondent in May 2001, 
and paid respondent $700.  After the client’s repeated inquiries about the status of 
the bankruptcy filing, respondent informed his client that he would refund the 
$700 fee.  The master commissioner found that respondent had not returned the 
fee or completed the bankruptcy filing.  The master commissioner also found that 
respondent did not disclose to the client that his license to practice law had been 
suspended. 
{¶8} 
The master commissioner found with respect to the third grievance 
that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 3-101(B), and 
7-102(A)(3).1 
                                                 
1. 
The master commissioner also determined that respondent was in violation of Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) for failing to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation of these grievances.  However, 
neither the complaint nor the amended complaint charged a violation of this rule, and we make no 
determination with respect to this violation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶9} 
Relator recommended that respondent be permanently disbarred 
from the practice of law, and the master commissioner agreed.  In accepting 
relator’s recommended sanction, the master commissioner considered as 
aggravating circumstances that respondent had previously been suspended from 
the practice of law and that his misconduct here was similar to the misconduct for 
which respondent had been previously sanctioned.2  In mitigation, the master 
commissioner considered that respondent had sought treatment for depression in 
late 2001 and had attended six to ten counseling sessions.  However, respondent 
acknowledged that he was not currently participating in treatment, and the master 
commissioner noted that respondent’s current treatment status was unknown. 
{¶10} The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommended sanction of disbarment. 
{¶11} On review, we find that the evidence of record supports the board’s 
findings of misconduct and recommended sanction.  Respondent breached his 
duties as attorney and fiduciary for an estate, misappropriated funds from that 
estate, promised to represent clients but performed no services on their behalf, and 
failed to promptly return unearned fees.  Respondent has engaged in a pattern of 
repeated misconduct similar to behavior for which he was previously sanctioned.  
Moreover, much of respondent’s misconduct occurred while he was suspended 
from the practice of law. 
{¶12} The normal penalty for continuing to practice law while under 
suspension is disbarment.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Koury (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 
433, 436, 674 N.E.2d 1371.  Respondent’s treatment for depression is insufficient 
to warrant a lesser sanction, as there is no evidence before the court that 
                                                 
2. 
The master commissioner also considered as an aggravating factor that respondent had 
failed to comply with the court’s previous suspension order that he repay $6,000 in unauthorized 
fees.  However, relator agreed with respondent’s deposition testimony that he has repaid this sum 
and the complaint in this case also states that he has.  Our determination in this regard has no 
effect on our disposition herein. 
January Term, 2003 
5 
respondent’s depression contributed to his misconduct.  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Baker (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 302, 603 N.E.2d 990. 
{¶13} Accordingly, respondent is permanently disbarred 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. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, Gloria J. Sigman and Robert 
R. Berger, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Paul Wesley Allison, pro se. 
__________________