Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Furth

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Furth, 93 Ohio St.3d 173, 2001-Ohio-1308] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FURTH. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Furth (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 173.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Permanent disbarment — Myriad violations 
of Disciplinary Rules forming a distinct pattern of disregard for the 
courts, clients, and other professionals. 
(No. 00-2341 — Submitted April 3, 2001 — Decided September 19, 
2001.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-03. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J.  On February 1, 1999, relator, Office of Disciplinary 
Counsel, filed a two-count complaint charging respondent, Thomas Craig Furth of 
Chagrin Falls, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0033870, with violating numerous 
Disciplinary Rules.  On September 9, 1999, relator filed an amended, eleven-
count complaint alleging additional Disciplinary Rule violations.  Respondent 
answered through counsel and thereafter stipulated to a number of facts and 
exhibits.  The matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
Counts 1 through 5 concern respondent’s relationship with Scott Johnson.  
On March 24, 1998, in Jonesboro, Arkansas, Mitchell Johnson, then age thirteen, 
and Andrew Golden, then age eleven, were involved in a shooting at Westside 
Middle School that left five people dead and ten others wounded.  The father of 
Mitchell Johnson is Scott Johnson, who lives in Grand Meadow, Minnesota.  
Mitchell Johnson lives with Mr. Johnson’s ex-wife in Jonesboro, Arkansas. 
 
The shooting quickly became the focus of national and worldwide media 
attention.  Immediately upon learning of his son’s involvement, Mr. Johnson 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
traveled to Jonesboro.  He described the media as being in a “feeding frenzy” and 
that he was repeatedly pressed for interviews. 
 
Count 1 concerns respondent’s alleged improper solicitation and false 
claims of specialization and expertise.  The panel found that respondent’s 
employee, Leo Tomeu, began calling Mr. Johnson to solicit permission for 
respondent to be counsel of record for Mitchell Johnson.  Mr. Johnson initially 
indicated that he was not interested in representation, but after Tomeu asked if he 
could fax some information regarding respondent, Mr. Johnson acquiesced. 
 
On March 27, 1998, respondent sent a letter to the public defenders 
assigned to represent Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden.  In the letter, 
respondent stated that his “entire area of specialty and expertise is the 
representation of children and young adults in criminal matters,” and that “[y]ou 
will not find anyone in the United States that is more of an expert in this regard 
than I am.” 
 
On or about March 28, 1998, respondent faxed a letter to Mr. Johnson, 
specifically writing, “[M]y entire specialty is representing children and young 
adults in (often major) criminal matters” (emphasis sic), that “I am the very 
best at what I do,” and that “[t]his is what I do, almost exclusively, and in 
numerous locations around the country.”  Shortly thereafter, Mr. Johnson agreed 
to retain respondent to represent Mitchell Johnson. 
 
On April 1, 1998, respondent appeared in the Chancery Court of 
Craighead County, Arkansas, Western District, Juvenile Division, for the purpose 
of gaining admission pro hac vice to represent Mitchell Johnson in charges 
relating to the shooting.  At the hearing, respondent stated that he specialized in 
juvenile law, specifically stating to the judge, “[M]y entire specialty is in cases 
involving children.” 
 
Subsequently, respondent and Mr. Johnson appeared on several national 
television shows.  Respondent testified that Mr. Johnson insisted on making 
January Term, 2001 
3 
media appearances, while Mr. Johnson testified that it was at respondent’s 
insistence that Mr. Johnson make the television appearances.  As a result of these 
appearances, on April 15, 1998, the judge held a status conference relating to 
respondent’s involvement in the case.  Asked by the judge how he had become 
involved, respondent replied, “I sent Mr. Johnson a condolence note and my 
associate right here, did the same thing.  He called us four or five days later, uh, 
he was on an airplane flying to New York to do a television appearance.”  During 
this hearing, the court removed respondent from any further participation as 
attorney of record for Mitchell Johnson.  At the disciplinary hearing, respondent 
testified that he had sent Mr. Johnson a condolence letter but that when retaining 
respondent, Mr. Johnson was responding to the solicitation letter. 
 
Based on these facts, as to Count 1, the panel concluded that respondent 
had violated DR 2-105(A) (a lawyer shall not hold himself out publicly as a 
specialist or as limiting his practice), 2-103(A) (a lawyer shall not recommend 
employment, as a private practitioner, of himself, his partner, or associate to a 
nonlawyer who has not sought his advice regarding employment of a lawyer, 
except as provided in DR 2-101), 2-101(F)(1) (a lawyer shall not make any 
solicitation of legal business in person or by telephone, except as provided in DR 
2-103 and 2-104), and 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  The panel dismissed one alleged violation 
under Count 1 for lack of clear and convincing evidence. 
 
Count 2 concerns respondent’s neglect of legal matters regarding the 
Johnson case.  The panel found that on or about May 29, 1998, respondent faxed a 
memorandum to Mr. Johnson recommending several specific legal actions.  These 
included preparation and filing of a federal lawsuit on Mitchell’s behalf against 
Craighead County for alleged violation of his civil rights, preparation and filing of 
a federal lawsuit on respondent’s behalf to ensure his ability to represent Mr. 
Johnson, preparation of a lawsuit against Mower County, Minnesota, on 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Mitchell’s behalf, filing bar grievances with the state of Arkansas against the two 
public defenders, the judge who removed respondent from the Johnson case, and 
the prosecutor, announcement of “the rest of” Mitchell’s legal team, and 
preparation of custody documents in the hiring of local Minnesota counsel to 
modify the custody order for Mr. Johnson’s other son, Monte. 
 
Respondent never pursued any of the legal actions outlined in this 
memorandum and testified that he had never agreed to represent Mr. Johnson in 
these matters or file documents pertaining to them.  Instead, respondent testified 
that he coordinated Mitchell Johnson’s cases in various locations. 
 
Based on these facts, the panel concluded that the evidence was not clear 
and convincing that respondent had agreed to represent Mr. Johnson in the 
matters outlined in Exhibit 4 and found no neglect.  Accordingly, the panel 
dismissed Count 2. 
 
Count 4 concerns respondent’s advancing of financial assistance to Scott 
Johnson.  The panel found that beginning in April 1998 and continuing during the 
course of his representation, respondent paid more than $6,000 to Mr. Johnson.  
Mr. Johnson testified that the $6,000 was not for expenses related to the case or 
investigation and was to be used in any way he chose.  Respondent testified that 
the money was advanced for living expenses. 
 
Based on these facts, the panel found by clear and convincing evidence 
that respondent had advanced money to Mr. Johnson in violation of DR 5-103(B) 
(a lawyer shall not advance or guarantee financial assistance to his client).  The 
panel dismissed the remaining alleged violation under Count 4. 
 
Count 5 concerns respondent’s failure to return files to Scott Johnson.  Mr. 
Johnson testified that during the course of respondent’s representation, he had 
forwarded documents to respondent that Mr. Johnson had obtained from 
Mitchell’s attorney in the Minnesota juvenile case.  On October 19, 1998, Mr. 
Johnson sent respondent a letter complaining of respondent’s neglect of the case, 
January Term, 2001 
5 
respondent’s attempts to sell publication rights, and respondent’s desire to appear 
in the media.  In his letter of October 23, 1998, terminating respondent, Mr. 
Johnson asked “that all records, including school records be returned to me with a 
written statement by you releasing me and my family from any past, current, or 
future financial responsibility.”  Respondent testified that he had sent Mr. Johnson 
“everything.”  However, respondent failed to produce a transmittal letter 
indicating that he returned the documents and also testified that he destroyed files 
for his juvenile clients.  He added, “[A] lot of my files were taken by Mr. Tomeu, 
including a lot of the files that would contain what you’re talking about.”  Mr. 
Johnson testified that he received no response. 
 
Based on this evidence, the panel found that Mr. Johnson was unable to 
identify which documents had not been returned by respondent and was unable to 
state how respondent’s failure to return any of these unidentifiable documents 
prejudiced the legal matters in which his son was involved. Accordingly, the 
panel dismissed the alleged violations under Count 5. 
 
Count 10 concerns respondent’s use of a misleading firm name.  The panel 
found that from March 24, 1998 through November 1, 1998, respondent’s 
letterhead indicated that his office was called “Tom Furth and Associates, 
Attorneys & Counselors at Law.”  However, no other attorneys were associated 
with respondent during this period.  Respondent admitted that this was a violation 
of the Disciplinary Rules at the hearing.  Accordingly, the panel concluded that 
respondent violated DR 2-102(B) (a lawyer in private practice shall not practice 
under a name that is misleading).  The panel dismissed other alleged violations in 
Count 10. 
 
Count 11 concerns respondent’s use of unverifiable, subjective, and self-
laudatory language in public communication.  The panel found that respondent 
participated in or assisted in the creation of an Internet site relating to an Arkansas 
case involving Neal and Jesse Eldridge, two brothers accused of killing their 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
father.  The website contained information regarding respondent, including the 
following statements: “A passionate and aggressive advocate on behalf of his 
clients, Mr. Furth is well known for helping children and their families both 
within the legal system and outside of it” and “I tend to be tirelessly passionate on 
behalf of all of my young clients.”  Respondent testified that he was responsible 
for the content of the website concerning his qualifications. 
 
The panel also found that respondent had placed an advertisement in an 
edition of the Hudson Monthly that included the following statements: “Tom 
Furth * * * Nationally noted.  Amazingly affordable.  Incredibly dedicated.  He’s 
our neighbor and he’s known from coast to coast.  * * *  Top notch legal services 
with a GUARANTEE of satisfaction and 24 hour a day access.”  (Emphasis sic.)  
Respondent testified that he was responsible for the content of this advertisement.  
He further testified that he has vast experience of representing children in legal 
matters.  The panel found that letters and affidavits submitted on his behalf as 
well as testimony from witnesses confirmed his testimony. 
 
Based on these facts, the panel concluded that the information contained 
on the website did not rise to the level of a Disciplinary Rule violation.  
Accordingly, the panel dismissed all the alleged violations in Count 11. 
 
Count 7 concerns the mishandling of a personal injury settlement of 
Angela Catania.  On or about April 25, 1998, Angela Catania was involved in a 
car accident in Solon, Ohio.  Catania received medical treatment as a result of 
physical injuries that she sustained in the accident.  During the course of his 
representation of Catania, respondent sent Westfield Insurance Company (the 
tortfeasor’s insurer) a draft affidavit from Catania indicating that Dr. John P. 
Wilson, a psychologist and expert in posttraumatic stress disorder, would be 
treating her. Respondent testified that Catania had helped draft the affidavit.  
However, Catania testified that she never saw Dr. Wilson and that she did not 
believe that she was in need of any mental health treatment as a result of her 
January Term, 2001 
7 
accident.  She also testified that she was not consulted by respondent regarding 
the affidavit and that it was inaccurate in several respects. 
 
In addition to the affidavit, respondent sent Westfield Insurance a letter 
stating, “It is my sincere hope that you will take into account the fact that her 
injuries are real, that she continues to suffer quite a bit, and that her psychological 
state is indicative of her need for a great deal of such care.”  Sometime thereafter, 
respondent reached a settlement with Westfield Insurance in the amount of 
$14,750 for Catania’s claim.  As respondent was being pursued by creditors, he 
asked his brother, Doug Furth, to deposit the settlement check in his own account 
at the stock brokerage firm of Merrill Lynch.  Doug Furth deposited the check, 
and, according to respondent’s instructions, kept a separate accounting of the 
money and disbursed portions of it to Catania. 
 
The panel also found that respondent later provided Catania with a 
disbursement schedule detailing that Dr. Wilson had been paid $1,500.  However, 
Dr. Wilson had never even met with Catania, had not billed for any matters 
related to her accident, and had never received any payment from respondent 
related to those matters.  Finally, respondent also withheld $731.55 for additional 
bills and fixed costs, stating, “Any unused portion of this remaining balance [will] 
be paid to Angela in 30 days after all final reports from doctors, etc.” 
 
Respondent admitted that he provided no additional accounting regarding 
the $731.55 and that he had made no payment to Dr. Wilson.  At the hearing, over 
a year after respondent provided Catania with the disbursement schedule, 
respondent was still in possession of the monies and only then agreed to return 
both the $731.55 and $1,500 sums to Catania. 
 
Based on this evidence as to Count 7, the panel concluded that because the 
money was commingled with other funds belonging to respondent, there was a 
violation of DR 9-102(A) (all funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law firm, other 
than advances for costs and expenses, shall be deposited into one or more 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
identifiable bank accounts and no funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm shall 
be deposited therein).  The panel concluded that, although respondent’s 
accounting was sloppy, it did not rise to a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).  
Additionally, the panel  concluded that there was no clear and convincing 
evidence of the remaining violations alleged under this count. 
 
Count 8 concerns respondent’s presentation of forged documents in his 
own personal injury suit and in matters relating to three individuals: Joseph 
Leonetti, Linda Wander, and Jason Widing.  The panel found that on or about 
January 23, 1994, respondent was robbed at gunpoint at a hotel in Florida.  As a 
result of the robbery, respondent pursued a personal injury claim against the hotel.  
Florida attorney Peter W. Martin represented him in the matter. 
 
On or about March 23, 1998, respondent faxed a letter to Martin.  The 
letter was purported to have been written and signed by Kim Goldhamer, a friend 
of respondent who was also an independent social worker licensed to practice in 
Ohio.  The letter, which claimed that respondent had undergone one hundred fifty 
counseling sessions over a two-year period with Goldhamer, was sent by Martin 
to the hotel as support for respondent’s claims of damages.  However, Goldhamer 
testified that she had never provided counseling to respondent, had neither written 
nor signed the letter, and had never authorized anyone else to write or sign the 
letter.  Respondent testified that he had faxed the letter to his attorney in Florida 
but had not read it; he insisted, however, that Goldhamer had provided him with 
extensive counseling.  Respondent subsequently settled with the hotel in question 
for $75,000. 
 
The second matter in Count 8 concerns Joseph Leonetti, a former business 
associate of respondent.  The panel found that during the course of Leonetti’s 
divorce, an issue arose concerning Leonetti’s alleged ownership of securities in an 
account in respondent’s name.  As a result, the Geauga County Court of Common 
Pleas issued an order freezing respondent’s account.  On or about March 23, 
January Term, 2001 
9 
1998, respondent filed a motion with the court requesting that the court vacate its 
order.  Testimony at the hearing established that respondent prepared the motion 
to vacate, proofread it, signed it, and was responsible for its filing. 
 
Respondent supported the motion with an affidavit that was purportedly 
signed by Goldhamer, whose signature respondent had notarized.  However, once 
again, Goldhamer testified that she had neither written nor signed the letter and 
did not authorize anyone else to write or sign the letter.  Moreover, she testified 
that the basic premise of the affidavit was false, i.e., that she and respondent 
shared business interests and plans.  Respondent admitted that he had not 
witnessed Goldhamer sign the affidavit. 
 
The third matter in Count 8 concerns respondent’s client, Linda Wander, 
who was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol in 1997.  
Respondent appeared as attorney of record for Wander in Portage County 
Municipal Court.  Respondent submitted a letter to the court, purportedly written 
and signed by Goldhamer, which stated that Wander had attended a seventy-two-
hour alcohol course with Goldhamer.  Once again, Goldhamer testified that she 
had never written or signed the letter and had not authorized anyone else to write 
or sign it.  In addition, she testified that respondent had contacted her requesting 
such a letter but that she had refused because she had not provided the course to 
Wander; respondent was “extremely upset” when she refused. 
 
Although respondent testified that he had not submitted the letter to the 
court, Agreed Stipulation 16 states, “On or about April 13, 1998, respondent 
appeared in court on behalf of Ms. Wander and presented Stipulated Exhibit 5.”  
Respondent further testified that he had not prepared it. 
 
The fourth and final matter in Count 8 concerns respondent’s client, Jason 
Widing.  The panel found that respondent represented Widing on a personal 
injury claim resulting from a motor vehicle accident and that he submitted two 
letters to an insurance company on Widing’s behalf during negotiations.  The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
letters were purportedly written by Goldhamer and referred to psychological 
damage caused Widing as a result of the accident. 
 
Goldhamer testified that she learned of the reports only when Widing’s 
new attorney contacted her and requested that they be updated.  She further 
testified that she had never prepared or signed the documents and that they were 
forgeries. 
 
Relator presented all the forged documents purported to have been written 
by Goldhamer to a handwriting expert who examined handwriting samples from 
respondent, Leo Tomeu, and Goldhamer.  Although the expert eliminated 
Goldhamer and respondent as the signers of the documents, the expert could not 
rule out Leo Tomeu. 
 
Based on these facts, as to Count 8, the panel concluded, “It strains 
credibility for the Respondent to contend that he did not read a letter that dealt 
with him and was going to be used in his own personal injury case.”  
Accordingly, the panel found violations of DR 7-102(A)(5) (knowingly making a 
false statement of law or fact) and 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).  However, the panel concluded 
that the evidence was not clear and convincing that respondent knew that the 
other letters, affidavits, and reports were forged and dismissed the remaining 
allegations.  Finally, the panel concluded that respondent had not witnessed the 
signature of Kim Goldhamer for her affidavit, as a notary is sworn to do. 
 
Count 3 concerns respondent’s interest in publication rights regarding the 
Jonesboro tragedy.  Count 6 involves respondent’s failure of cooperation with the 
disciplinary investigation. The panel dismissed Counts 3 and 6.  Count 9 concerns 
the allegation that respondent aided the unauthorized practice of law.  As relator 
presented no evidence on this count, the panel dismissed it, and relator has 
withdrawn it. 
January Term, 2001 
11 
 
In mitigation, the panel found that respondent admitted that he had 
violated DR 2-102(B) (a lawyer in private practice shall not practice under a name 
that is misleading) and 2-105(A) (a lawyer shall not hold himself out publicly as a 
specialist or as limiting his practice).  The panel also found that respondent 
admitted to not properly supervising his paralegal employee, Leo Tomeu.  The 
panel asserted that Tomeu was involved with every grievance filed against 
respondent.  Respondent also admitted that he lacked the proper resources to 
undertake the defense of Mitchell Johnson.  The panel found that although 
respondent should avoid representing clients in matters for which he does not 
have adequate resources, he has a sincere interest in working with juveniles, and 
“[w]hile not necessarily a trial advocate, it is clear that Respondent is an advocate 
for doing the right thing for the juveniles he has been hired to help.” 
 
The board adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the panel 
and recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a 
period of two years.  The board also recommended that the Supreme Court notify 
the Governor’s Notary Commission of respondent’s violation of the statute 
governing notaries public. 
 
Relator has objected to the board’s recommendation and raises the 
following six legal arguments: 
 
(1) 
Respondent’s conduct as outlined in Count 1 violates Disciplinary 
Rules in addition to the violations identified by the board. 
 
(2) 
Respondent assumed responsibility for a number of legal matters 
for Scott and Mitchell Johnson and neglected them all, thereby violating the Code 
of Professional Responsibility. 
 
(3) 
Respondent’s misconduct includes his failure to return documents 
to his client after the attorney-client relationship ended. 
 
(4) 
Respondent’s conduct as detailed in Count 7 violates additional 
Disciplinary Rules. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
(5) 
Respondent’s conduct as detailed in Count 8 violates additional 
Disciplinary Rules. 
 
(6) 
Respondent used unverifiable, subjective, and self-laudatory 
language in his website and his advertising. 
 
The Supreme Court is not bound by the conclusion of either the panel or 
the board regarding the facts or law when determining the propriety of an 
attorney’s conduct and the appropriate sanction.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Reid 
(1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 327, 330, 708 N.E.2d 193, 197.  Therefore, in making our 
determination, we have considered not only the board’s findings of fact and 
conclusions of law, but the record, testimony, the exhibits, the pleadings, the 
stipulations, and the legal arguments presented to the court. 
 
In disciplinary proceedings, the relator bears the burden of proving by 
clear and convincing evidence the facts necessary to establish a violation. Id. at 
331, 708 N.E.2d at 197, citing Gov.Bar R. V(6)(J) and Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Jackson (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 308, 310, 691 N.E.2d 262, 263.  “ ‘Clear and 
convincing evidence’ [is] ‘that measure or degree of proof which is more than a 
mere “preponderance of the evidence,” but not to the extent of such certainty as is 
required “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases, and which will produce 
in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to 
be established.’ “  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Reid, 85 Ohio St.3d at 331, 708 N.E.2d 
at 197, quoting Cross v. Ledford (1954), 161 Ohio St. 469, 53 O.O. 361, 120 
N.E.2d 118, paragraph three of the syllabus.  Upon review, we find that relator 
met its burden of proof on all of the counts as recommended by the board.  We 
conclude that relator has met its burden on several other alleged violations that the 
panel and the board inappropriately dismissed. 
Count 1 
 
Relator argues that in addition to the violations identified by the board, 
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
January Term, 2001 
13 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely 
reflecting on his fitness to practice law), 2-104(A) (a lawyer who has given 
unsolicited advice to a layman that he should obtain counsel or take legal action 
shall not accept employment resulting from that advice), and 7-102(A)(5) 
(knowingly making a false statement of law or fact).  We agree. 
 
The panel found that testimony at the hearing indicated that respondent 
concentrated his practice in representation of juveniles.  However, of the forty-
two juveniles with whom respondent claimed to have had some involvement, 
relator was able to verify only seven cases from the Cleveland area.  Furthermore, 
respondent provided no evidence to justify his claim of a national reputation. 
Therefore, although respondent may have concentrated on juveniles in his law 
practice, we hold that relator proved unverifiable by clear and convincing 
evidence respondent’s assertions that “[y]ou will not find anyone in the United 
States that is more of an expert in this regard than I am” and that he has developed 
a national reputation for representing juveniles.  Accordingly, we hold that 
respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4). 
 
Lying to a court is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.  “ ‘An attorney 
owes his first duty to the court.  He assumed his obligations toward it before he 
ever had a client.’ “ Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Nienaber (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 534, 
537, 687 N.E.2d 678, 681, quoting In re Integration of Nebraska State Bar Assn. 
(1937), 133 Neb. 283, 289, 275 N.W. 265, 268.  Evidence proves that respondent 
knowingly made a false statement of fact when he told the Chancery Court of 
Craighead County, Arkansas, that he had become involved with Scott Johnson by 
sending him a condolence note.  As respondent testified before the panel, 
respondent sent a solicitation letter to the public defenders assigned to represent 
Mitchell Johnson, attempted to contact the public defenders, and signed and faxed 
a solicitation letter to Scott Johnson, all before he supposedly sent a condolence 
note.  Neither the panel nor the board stated a reason for dismissing clear 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
evidence of a violation of respondent’s duty to be honest when communicating 
with a client.  Accordingly, we conclude that relator proved by clear and 
convincing evidence that respondent violated DR 7-102(A)(5). 
 
The panel found that respondent was responsible for the actions of his 
employee in the original solicitation.  However, the panel inexplicably dismissed 
the alleged violation of DR 2-104(A).  Respondent’s six-page solicitation letter to 
Mr. Johnson is replete with unsolicited advice detailing Mitchell Johnson’s need 
for a comprehensive plan, including legal, psychological, and public relations 
actions that respondent felt were in Mitchell’s best interests.  Accordingly, we 
hold that relator proved by clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated 
DR 2-104(A). 
 
Finally, respondent’s conduct in soliciting Scott Johnson, falsely holding 
himself out as a specialist to both Scott Johnson and the public defenders, offering 
unsolicited advice, and misrepresenting facts to a court establish that respondent 
engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law.  
Accordingly, we hold that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6). 
Count 2 
 
The board found no violations under Count 2, based on its conclusion that 
the evidence was not clear and convincing that respondent ever agreed to 
represent Scott Johnson concerning any legal matters other than the criminal 
charge.  Relator argues that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting a 
legal matter entrusted to him), 7-101(A)(1) (failing to seek the lawful objectives 
of his client), 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract of employment), and 1-
102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice 
law).  We agree. 
 
Respondent’s documents to Mr. Johnson show that he agreed to represent 
Mitchell in his Minnesota case as well as in several civil lawsuits relating to the 
Arkansas shooting.  The May 28, 1998 memorandum even gave filing deadlines 
January Term, 2001 
15 
for two of the proposed lawsuits:  one of the federal lawsuits was to be filed on 
June 3, 1998, and the Minnesota lawsuit on June 4, 1998.  Respondent 
participated in a telephone conference in a Minnesota case as Mitchell’s attorney 
and was ordered to draft a plea agreement with the prosecutors.  Respondent 
concedes that he “agreed to represent Mitchell Johnson in a Juvenile case pending 
in Minnesota for the sole purpose of finalizing a Judgment Entry.”  Indicative of 
respondent’s neglect, respondent never obtained a signature on the document and 
never sent it back to the Minnesota court.  Third, respondent’s own press release 
identified him as “attorney for the Johnson family, for Mitchell Johnson relative 
to Minnesota criminal charges, and Arkansas civil charges, and member of the 
Arkansas criminal defense team.” 
 
Finally, Mr. Johnson’s letter of October 19, 1998, specifically complained 
about respondent’s neglect of Mitchell’s Minnesota case, a civil suit brought by 
families of the victims, Scott Johnson’s child support obligation case, and a 
federal lawsuit relating to treatment Mr. Johnson received by Arkansas 
authorities.  In his termination letter to respondent, Mr. Johnson stated, “I have 
asked you repeatedly about the Federal case filings, civil answers, etc., and you 
always answer that there is no hurry, or that you’re almost finished with the paper 
work.” 
 
Again, we disagree with the board’s conclusion that these facts do not 
clearly and convincingly prove that Mr. Johnson reasonably believed that 
respondent was representing him and his son on all of the matters to which 
respondent referred in his own communication.  Accordingly, we hold that relator 
proved by clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated DR 6-
101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), and 1-102(A)(6). 
Count 5 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
16 
 
The board found no violation, based on its conclusion that relator failed to 
prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent did not return all of the 
documents to Mr. Johnson. 
 
Relator argues that respondent violated DR 2-110(A)(2) (failing to deliver 
to the client all papers and property to which the client is entitled), 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 his fitness to practice 
law).  We agree. 
 
Mr. Johnson expressly requested that respondent return all records in his 
possession, including school records, in his letter of October 23, 1998.  In his 
testimony, Mr. Johnson denied receiving any documents from respondent.  
Respondent’s testimony regarding this point was inconsistent: he initially testified 
that he had returned Mr. Johnson’s documents but in later testimony stated that 
Tomeu had taken many of his files, including those of Mr. Johnson.  Respondent 
also testified that he had a practice of destroying files for his juvenile clients.  We 
find these facts prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent did not 
return all of the documents to Mr. Johnson.  Accordingly, we hold that respondent 
violated DR 2-110(A)(2), 1-102(A)(5), and 1-102(A)(6). 
Count 7 
 
We adopt the panel’s findings of fact in Count 7.  However, we decline to 
adopt the panel’s conclusions of law and hold that there is clear and convincing 
evidence that respondent violated several additional Disciplinary Rules with 
respect to his representation of Angela Catania.  Respondent intentionally misled 
the insurance company during negotiations by falsely asserting that Catania 
suffered psychological injuries.  Respondent prepared a false settlement document 
by listing a nonexistent medical bill of $1,500 and withheld, without justification, 
an additional $731.55.  Finally, respondent gave the settlement proceeds to his 
brother, Doug Furth, to be deposited in his brother’s personal checking account.  
January Term, 2001 
17 
Accordingly, we hold that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) 
(engaging in any other conduct adversely reflecting on a lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law), 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly pay or deliver to the client as 
requested by the client funds in the possession of the lawyer which the client is 
entitled to receive), and 9-102(B)(3) (a lawyer shall maintain complete records of 
all funds of the client coming into the possession of the lawyer and render 
appropriate accounts to his client regarding the same).  Were we to adopt the 
recommendations of the panel and the board on these facts, we would thereby 
send a message to the bar that could not be rationalized with our professional 
standards. 
Count 8 
 
Although the panel found that respondent violated Disciplinary Rules 
regarding his own personal injury case, it concluded that the evidence was not 
clear and convincing that respondent knew that the letters, affidavits, and reports 
in the matters concerning Joseph Leonetti, Linda Wander, and Jason Widing were 
false.  We disagree.  It is illogical to conclude that respondent intentionally wrote 
and used a false affidavit with a forged signature in his own personal injury case, 
yet conclude that the other false affidavits, letters, and reports purportedly 
prepared by the same person do not constitute clear and convincing evidence that 
respondent used falsified documents.  Moreover, if the panel believed 
Goldhamer’s testimony that she did not write or sign the affidavit in respondent’s 
personal injury case, it follows that her testimony regarding the other cases would 
also be credible.  The panel offers no reason to make a distinction.  Accordingly, 
we hold that respondent violated DR 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) (conduct adversely 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
18 
reflecting on his fitness to practice law), 7-102(A)(4) (knowingly using false 
evidence), and 7-102(A)(5) (knowingly making a false statement of law or fact). 
Count 10 
 
Respondent admitted that he violated DR 2-102(B) (a lawyer in private 
practice shall not practice under a name that is misleading), and the board found a 
violation.  We agree. 
Count 11 
 
The board found no violation, concluding that information contained 
within the website did not rise to a level of the Disciplinary Rule violation.  We 
conclude otherwise.  In Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Grieselhuber (1997), 78 Ohio 
St.3d 373, 678 N.E.2d 535, we held that inclusion of the statement “We Do It 
Well” in an advertisement was unverifiable and a violation of DR 2-101(A)(4) (a 
lawyer shall not use any form of public communication that is not verifiable). 
 
Similarly, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Bradley (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 261, 
695 N.E.2d 248, an attorney mailed to the general public brochures that described 
the attorney as a “leader in the creation of quality living trust documents” and 
published the brochure in a newspaper.  We held this conduct to be a violation of 
DR 2-101(A)(1) (a lawyer shall not use any form of public communication that 
contains any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, self-laudatory, or unfair 
statement). 
 
Under the standard of Bradley and Grieselhuber, respondent’s statements 
in the website and his advertisement are clearly unverifiable and self-laudatory.  
Accordingly, we find that respondent violated DR 2-101(A)(4) and 2-101(A)(1). 
Sanction 
 
In recommending a two-year suspension, the board found that respondent 
engaged in the following instances of misconduct: 
• Holding himself out as a specialist, 
• Soliciting Scott Johnson, 
January Term, 2001 
19 
• Making misrepresentations of fact to an Arkansas court, 
• Paying his client, Scott Johnson, more than $6,000, 
• Failing to deposit Catania’s settlement funds in a trust account, 
• Knowingly using a forged letter in his own personal injury case, and 
• Using a misleading firm name. 
 
Concluding that respondent’s misconduct occurred during a nine-month 
period beginning with solicitation of Scott Johnson, the board recommended that 
respondent be suspended for a period of two years.  However, the forged letter 
that respondent used in his own personal injury case was dated March 4, 1998, 
weeks before the Arkansas shooting.  And his misconduct with regard to Catania 
all occurred after he was terminated by Scott Johnson.  We agree with relator that 
the record compels a reevaluation of the sanction recommended by the board 
based upon the following conduct: 
• Making misrepresentations in his solicitation letters to the Arkansas public 
defenders and to Scott Johnson, 
• Advising a nonlawyer that he should obtain counsel and accepting 
employment resulting from that advice, 
• Lying to a court, 
• Neglecting legal matters, 
• Using false affidavits to vacate a court order and to obtain money 
settlements in his own and in others’ personal injury cases, 
• Withholding settlement monies from a client, and 
• Using unverifiable and self-laudatory statements in advertisements. 
 
In only a few disciplinary cases has a lawyer violated so many rules of 
conduct as respondent has violated here.  His myriad violations of express rules 
are not isolated incidents but form a distinct pattern of disregard for the courts, 
clients, other professionals, and for his own integrity.  Because respondent has 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
20 
demonstrated blatant disregard for the most important standards by which 
members of the bar of Ohio are expected to conduct their professional activities, 
respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
PETREE, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., 
concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissents and would indefinitely suspend respondent. 
 
CHARLES R. PETREE, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for 
DOUGLAS, J. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Crabbe, Brown & James, Larry H. James and Christina L. Corl, for 
respondent. 
__________________