Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Squeo

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Squeo, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5004.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-5004 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. SQUEO. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Squeo,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5004.] 
Attorney misconduct—Dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2012-0697—Submitted June 6, 2012—Decided October 31, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-038. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Mark Joseph Squeo of Galloway, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0041259,1 was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1989.  
On December 5, 2003, we suspended Squeo’s license for his failure to comply 
with the applicable continuing legal education (“CLE”) requirements for the 
                                                 
1 The complaint erroneously identifies respondent as “Marco Joseph Squeo,” but accurately states 
the attorney-registration number assigned to Mark Joseph Squeo. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
2001-2002 reporting period.  In re Continuing Legal Edn. Suspension of Squeo, 
100 Ohio St.3d 1516, 2003-Ohio-6494, 800 N.E.2d 34.  And on December 2, 
2005, we suspended Squeo from the practice of law for his failure to register as an 
attorney for the 2005 to 2007 biennium.  In re Attorney Registration Suspension 
of Squeo, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671.  Both 
suspensions remain in effect. 
{¶ 2} On April 11, 2011, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed an 
amended complaint2 alleging that while Squeo’s license was under suspension, he 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by holding himself out as an 
attorney.3  Relator further alleged that Squeo had failed to cooperate in the 
resulting disciplinary investigation. 
{¶ 3} Although Squeo filed a belated answer to relator’s initial complaint 
on October 27, 2011, he did not answer relator’s January 9, 2012 second amended 
complaint, which broke Squeo’s alleged misconduct down into two separate 
counts and identified additional examples of his alleged failure to cooperate in 
relator’s investigation.  He also failed to appear at the March 5, 2012 panel 
hearing. 
{¶ 4} The panel issued a report making findings of fact and concluding 
that Squeo had committed the charged misconduct.  Citing the numerous 
aggravating factors present in this case and the sanctions we have imposed for 
comparable conduct, the panel recommended that Squeo be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of 
fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction. 
                                                 
2  The original complaint is not in the record, but according to testimony by bar counsel, the first 
amended complaint was identical to the original complaint, except that it corrected or clarified two 
dates in the original complaint. 
 
3 Relator charged Squeo with misconduct pursuant to applicable rules for acts occurring before 
and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which 
superseded the Code of Professional Responsibility. 
 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
{¶ 5} Like the board, we find that Squeo engaged in dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation and in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration 
of justice by holding himself out as an attorney while his license was under 
suspension and by failing to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.  
We also agree that an indefinite suspension is the proper sanction for his 
misconduct. 
Misconduct 
Count One:  Squeo Held Himself Out as an Attorney 
While His License Was Under Suspension 
{¶ 6} At the panel hearing, Kimberly Patrick testified that in early 2009, 
she and her husband were driving in their vehicle when it was struck by another 
vehicle.  At the scene of the accident, the passenger of the other vehicle identified 
himself as Marco Squeo and stated that the minor who was driving was his son.  
Squeo advised the Patricks that he was insured, but asked them not to call the 
police, stating that he preferred to pay for their damages himself.  To bolster his 
credibility, he advised them that he was a lawyer and handed them a business card 
for Squeo Companies, L.L.C., with a Galloway, Ohio, address, bearing the name 
Marco J. Squeo, Esq., and identifying him as an attorney at law.  On the back of 
the card, he wrote the make and model of his car, the license-plate number, and 
“State Farm,” followed by a policy number. 
{¶ 7} Squeo did not respond to the Patricks’ numerous attempts to reach 
him following the accident.  The Patricks discovered, however, that Squeo did not 
have insurance through State Farm and that the insurance information that Squeo 
had given them at the scene of the accident was not his but instead was his ex-
wife’s.  Kimberly Patrick testified that State Farm told her that the minor who had 
been driving Squeo’s vehicle was not his son, as he had claimed, but was actually 
his nephew.  The Patricks eventually reported the accident to the local police 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
department, and their own insurance company, and their insurer paid their claim 
and sought restitution from Squeo. 
{¶ 8} Based upon Squeo’s conduct in the Patrick matter, the board 
determined that he had violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5 (prohibiting a lawyer who is not 
admitted to practice in this jurisdiction from representing that he is admitted to 
practice in this jurisdiction), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(h) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
{¶ 9} In addition, based upon three documents executed and filed with 
the Franklin County recorder in January and February 2004, all of which bear the 
notation “This instrument was prepared by MARK J. SQUEO, ATTORNEY AT 
LAW” (capitalization sic), the panel and board determined that Squeo had 
engaged in the practice of law while his license was under suspension.  The first 
of those documents is a special power of attorney appointing Squeo as attorney-
in-fact to purchase certain real property on behalf of Kim W. Jackson and Janette 
P. Jackson, who executed the document on January 21, 2004.  That document was 
filed with the Franklin County recorder on February 5, 2004.  The second 
document is a special power of attorney appointing Squeo to convey certain real 
property on behalf of Collis H. Davis and Violeta P. Hughes.  Davis and Hughes 
executed the document on January 7, 2004, and the document was filed with the 
Franklin County recorder on January 22, 2004.  The third document is a 
survivorship deed executed by Mark J. Squeo for Collis H. Davis and Violeta P. 
Hughes on January 15, 2004, to transfer certain real property on their behalf.  
That document was filed with the Franklin County recorder on January 22, 2004.4   
                                                 
4 The board also found that the webpage of HER Real Living realtors Jim and Tara Thomas 
identified Squeo as the closing attorney for their real estate firm, and that in a letter to an 
insurance-claims representative dated July 13, 2009, Squeo purported to represent clients 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
{¶ 10} Based upon these documents, the board found that Squeo had 
violated DR 3-101(B) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction 
in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction), 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). 
{¶ 11} We adopt these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Count Two:  Squeo Failed to Cooperate in the 
Resulting Disciplinary Investigation 
{¶ 12} Bar counsel, Bruce Campbell, testified that relator sent numerous 
letters to Squeo at the addresses that he had registered with the Office of Attorney 
Services and to the Galloway address on the business card that Squeo had given to 
the Patricks on the day of the accident, but that a number of them were returned 
marked unclaimed.  In January 2010, relator sent a notice of deposition to Squeo 
by certified and regular mail.  Although someone at the Galloway address signed 
for the certified letter, Squeo failed to appear for his deposition. 
{¶ 13} When attempts to serve relator’s complaint on Squeo by certified 
mail failed, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline served the 
complaint on the clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). 
{¶ 14} Because Squeo failed to timely file an answer, relator prepared a 
default motion, but Campbell wanted to talk to Squeo before filing it.  He went to 
Squeo’s registered address, where he spoke with some neighbors and discovered 
that Squeo had not lived at that address in several years.  He then went to the 
Galloway address and found Squeo in the yard.  Squeo acknowledged that he had 
                                                                                                                                     
regarding an insurance claim.  The documents that they cite to support these findings, however, 
are not in evidence, because relator withdrew them at the panel hearing.  We therefore reject these 
findings of fact. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
received some mailings from relator, but stated that he had not bothered to open 
them, because he was not practicing law and thus did not feel that he had any 
responsibility to the bar association.  Following that meeting, Squeo filed an 
answer to the original complaint.  But he did not appear for a scheduled 
deposition, despite the fact that a subpoena was served on someone at the 
Galloway address. 
{¶ 15} Squeo was served with relator’s second amended complaint by 
regular mail,5 but he did not answer it.  Squeo did not participate in a telephone 
prehearing conference on February 3, 2012, even though the panel chair had 
continued the conference for Squeo’s convenience.  And although Squeo received 
notice of the time and place of the evidentiary hearing, he did not appear. 
{¶ 16} The board found, and we agree, that this conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a 
demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an investigation), 
8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), and 8.4(h). 
Sanction 
{¶ 17} 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 
St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final 
                                                 
5 The board found that Squeo was served with the second amended complaint by certified mail, 
but the record demonstrates that the certified-mail service attempted by both relator and the board 
failed.  The certificate of service attached to the second amended complaint, however, states that 
relator mailed the document to Squeo by certified and regular mail on January 9, 2012.  Gov.Bar 
R. V(11)(D) requires only that the party affected by an amendment to a complaint be given a 
reasonable opportunity to meet any new matter presented.  And Civ.R. 5(B) provides that service 
of pleadings and other papers subsequent to the original complaint may be accomplished by mail 
to the last known address of the person to be served and provides that service by mail is complete 
upon mailing.  Therefore, we find that Squeo was served with the second amended complaint, but 
not by certified mail.  
 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 18} The board found that seven of the nine aggravating factors set forth 
in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) are present: (1) a prior disciplinary record, (2) a 
selfish or dishonest motive, (3) a pattern of misconduct, (4) multiple offenses, (5) 
failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process, (6) vulnerability of and resulting 
harm to victims of the misconduct, and (7) failure to make restitution.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (h), and (i).  The board found no 
mitigating factors.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2).  We agree with these findings. 
{¶ 19} Relator requests and the board recommends that Squeo be 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  In support of this sanction, they 
note our holding that neglect of legal matters coupled with a failure to cooperate 
in the ensuing disciplinary investigation generally warrants an indefinite 
suspension.  See, e.g., Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Kaplan, 124 Ohio St.3d 278, 
2010-Ohio-167, 921 N.E.2d 645, ¶ 15. 
{¶ 20} Although Squeo has not been found to have neglected client 
matters, he held himself out as an attorney while his license to practice law was 
suspended, gave the Patricks false insurance information, and falsely stated his 
intention to personally pay for the damage to their vehicle, all to convince them 
that they should not report the auto accident to the police.  Moreover, he failed to 
cooperate in the resulting disciplinary investigation.  His actions were prejudicial 
to the administration of justice and adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law.  
As the panel and board found, on the evidence before us, “we can only conclude 
that his conduct demonstrates dishonesty, perversity, and recalcitrance.” 
{¶ 21} We have imposed an indefinite suspension for comparable 
misconduct in the past.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Mitchell, 124 Ohio 
St.3d 266, 2010-Ohio-135, 921 N.E.2d 634 (imposing an indefinite suspension on 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
an attorney who attempted to deceive a juvenile court magistrate as to his identity 
and the status of his license to practice law while under an attorney-registration 
suspension), and Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 126 Ohio St.3d 389, 2010-
Ohio-3824, 934 N.E.2d 328, ¶ 14 (recognizing that we have routinely imposed 
indefinite suspensions on attorneys who continued to practice law after we have 
suspended their licenses for CLE and registration violations).  Therefore, we hold 
that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction for Squeo’s misconduct. 
{¶ 22} Accordingly, Mark Joseph Squeo is indefinitely suspended from 
the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to Squeo. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Yvonne L. Twiss; Bruce A. Campbell, Bar Counsel, and A. Alysha Clous, 
Assistant Bar Counsel; Mazanec, Raskin, Ryder & Keller Co., L.P.A., and 
Michael S. Loughry; and Mary Lynn Readey, for relator. 
______________________