Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Blair

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Blair, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-767.] 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-767 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BLAIR. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Blair,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-767.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules and 
Rules of Professional Conduct — Partially stayed suspension, with 
probation and continued alcohol and mental-health treatment ordered. 
(No. 2010-1862 — Submitted January 4, 2011 — Decided February 24, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-013. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Rebecca Susan Blair, of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0037270, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1986.  In 
July 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed an amended two-count complaint 
charging respondent with multiple violations of the Code of Professional 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct1 arising from her 
mishandling and misappropriation of funds belonging to an incompetent ward, 
and her failure to properly supervise her employees, which resulted in the filing of 
a false guardian account and a forged affidavit.  The parties entered into agreed 
stipulations of fact and misconduct and have agreed to a number of mitigating 
factors.  The panel and board have accepted the stipulated findings. 
{¶ 2} The parties stipulated that the appropriate sanction for respondent’s 
misconduct is a one-year suspension with six months stayed on conditions.  The 
panel, however, concluded, and the board agreed, that respondent’s 
misappropriation of more than $16,000 belonging to her incompetent ward 
warranted a greater period of suspension and probation.  Accordingly, the panel 
and board recommend that we suspend respondent from the practice of law for 
two years with 18 months stayed on the conditions that respondent be placed on 
monitored probation in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9), remain in compliance 
with her Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) contract, continue to 
receive alcohol and mental-health counseling, and complete a continuing legal 
education (“CLE”) course in law-office management.  Neither party has objected 
to the board’s findings or recommendation. 
{¶ 3} We agree that respondent has committed professional misconduct 
as stipulated by the parties and found by the board and that a two-year suspension 
with 18 months stayed is the appropriate sanction for that misconduct. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
                                                 
1 Relator charged respondent with misconduct under applicable rules for acts occurring before and 
after February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which supersede 
the Code of Professional Responsibility. When both the former and current rules are cited for the 
same act, the allegation constitutes a single ethical violation.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Freeman, 
119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 1, fn. 1. 
 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
{¶ 4} The panel and board adopted the parties’ stipulation that in January 
2005, the Cuyahoga County Probate Court appointed respondent to serve as the 
successor guardian for an incompetent ward’s estate.  After deducting her court-
approved fees, respondent held $16,972.83 of the ward’s remaining assets in her 
client trust account.  None of this money was placed in an interest-bearing 
account on behalf of the ward.  Within six months, respondent had withdrawn all 
the ward’s assets from her client trust account but did not use any of those funds 
for the ward’s benefit. 
{¶ 5} The panel and board agree that these facts clearly and convincingly 
demonstrate that respondent’s conduct violates DR 1-102(A)(4) and Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(c) (both prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, 
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), DR 1-102(A)(6) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) 
(both prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), DR 9-102(B)(3) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2) 
(both requiring a lawyer to maintain a record for each client on whose behalf 
funds are held), as well as DR 9-102(E)(1) (requiring an attorney to maintain 
client funds in an interest-bearing account) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a 
lawyer to hold property of clients separate from the lawyer’s own property).  They 
further recommend that we dismiss alleged violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) and 
Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (both prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial to the 
administration of justice) in accordance with the parties’ stipulations. 
{¶ 6} In addition to the factual findings of the panel and board, we note 
that the parties have stipulated that between March 25, 2005, and September 9, 
2005, respondent wrote 31 checks against her client trust account.  Twenty-six of 
those checks – totaling $33,150 – were payable to respondent. And by July 2006, 
respondent’s client trust account had a negative balance. 
{¶ 7} Although the probate court issued a notice to file account in 
January 2007 and a citation to file account in March 2007, respondent failed to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
file the guardianship account.  Instead, she requested and obtained eight separate 
30-day extensions for the filing of the account.  When the court granted the final 
extension in November 2007, it also issued a motion to remove respondent as the 
fiduciary for failure to file the account. 
{¶ 8} By December 2007, respondent had accumulated over $20,000 in 
earned fees in her client trust account, and on December 10, 2007, she reimbursed 
$16,972.83 to her ward from those funds. In June 2009, she paid the ward an 
additional $2,000 to compensate the ward for the interest that would have been 
earned if respondent had initially deposited the ward’s funds in a separate interest-
bearing account. 
{¶ 9} Accepting the board’s factual findings and adopting these 
additional stipulated facts, we conclude that respondent has violated DR 1-
102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 9-102(B)(3), and 9-102(E)(1), as well as  Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(c), 8.4(h), 1.15(a)(2), and 1.15(a), as found by the panel and board.  We also 
dismiss the alleged violations of DR 1-102(A)(5) and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) as 
stipulated by the parties and recommended by the panel and board. 
Count II 
{¶ 10} Count II arises from respondent’s failure to adequately supervise 
her staff while she served as the guardian for the incompetent ward discussed in 
Count I.  Specifically, respondent had authorized her staff to prepare and file 
pleadings regarding the guardianship in the probate court with no oversight and 
supervision. 
{¶ 11} On December 4, 2007, respondent’s staff prepared and filed a 
motion to correct an inventory previously filed in the guardianship proceeding to 
reflect that the true value of the ward’s assets was $25,656 instead of the $30,000 
previously reported.  In support of that motion, respondent’s staff prepared an 
affidavit falsely stating, “Affiant further states that this entire amount was 
deposited into her [client trust] account to hold on behalf of [the ward], and the 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
only disbursements from said funds have been $8,683.17 for attorney’s fees 
approved by this Court.”  A member of the staff signed respondent’s name to the 
affidavit and notarized the forged signature before filing it with the court.  In fact, 
the ward’s account was bankrupt. 
{¶ 12} Based upon the misrepresentations in the affidavit, the probate 
court “corrected” the inventory and dismissed its motion to remove respondent as 
fiduciary.  The parties stipulated that respondent’s staff later prepared a 
guardian’s account that falsely represented the disbursements and remainder of 
the ward’s assets, signed the respondent’s name to the document, and filed it in 
the probate court. 
{¶ 13} The panel and board conclude that these findings clearly and 
convincingly demonstrate that respondent’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d), 
8.4(h), and 5.3(a) (requiring a lawyer possessing managerial authority in a law 
firm to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the conduct of nonlawyers working 
for the firm is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer).  We 
accept these findings of fact and misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 14} 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 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 15} In mitigation of punishment, the panel and board accepted the 
parties’ stipulations that respondent has no prior disciplinary record, has made a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
timely and good-faith effort to make restitution, has made full and free disclosure 
to the board and demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary 
proceedings, and has a positive reputation in the legal community.  See BCGD 
10(B)(2)(a), (c), (d), and (e).  Additionally, the panel and board observed that Dr. 
David Feldman, a board-certified psychiatrist, has diagnosed respondent with 
alcohol dependence and recurrent major depressive disorder and determined that 
these conditions contributed to the conduct alleged in Count II of the amended 
complaint.  Further, they found that respondent has been sober since January 2, 
2008, continues to actively participate in Alcoholics Anonymous and the Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”), has sustained treatment for her 
depression, and remains under the care of her treating psychiatrist and a licensed 
social worker.  The panel and board concluded that these factors constitute “other 
interim rehabilitation” pursuant to BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(h).  Moreover, 
respondent’s treating psychiatrist and her OLAP counselor report that she will be 
able to return to the competent, ethical practice of law.  See BCGD 10(B)(2)(g). 
{¶ 16} Although the parties stipulated that no aggravating factors were 
present, the panel and board found that respondent had acted with a dishonest or 
selfish motive when she misappropriated the guardianship funds in Count I.  
BGGD Proc.Reg. (B)(1)(b). 
{¶ 17} Citing the lack of criminal consequences for respondent’s 
misappropriation of guardianship assets and the lack of an expert opinion causally 
linking that conduct to her chemical dependency or her depression, the panel and 
board rejected the parties’ recommended sanction of a 12-month suspension with 
six months conditionally stayed.  Citing Columbus Bar Assn. v. Kostelac (1997), 
80 Ohio St.3d 432, 687 N.E.2d 408, and Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Diehl, 105 Ohio 
St.3d 469, 2005-Ohio-2817, 828 N.E.2d 1004, they recommend that we impose a 
two-year suspension with 18 months stayed on the conditions that respondent 
serve 18 months of monitored probation, continue to comply with  her OLAP 
January Term, 2011 
7 
 
contract, continue to receive alcohol and mental-health counseling, and in 
addition to the CLE requirements of Gov.Bar X, complete a CLE course in law-
office management. 
{¶ 18} In Kostelac, the attorney used his client trust account as an 
operating account, failed to keep accurate records of deposits and disbursements, 
issued a check to a client that was dishonored for insufficient funds, and used 
client funds for his own purposes.  Kostelac, 80 Ohio St.3d at 433.  Although he 
paid restitution to the affected clients, we observed that “even where the client 
suffers no harm, an attorney’s commingling of his own funds with client funds or 
the attorney’s use of client funds for operating expenses is subject to sanction.”  
Id. at 434.  Therefore, we adopted the board recommendation and suspended 
Kostelac’s license to practice law for two years with 18 months stayed on 
conditions.  Id. at  435. 
{¶ 19} Likewise, in Diehl we suspended an attorney’s license to practice 
law for two years with 18 months conditionally stayed for misappropriating client 
funds to cover his business expenses, failing to maintain professional liability 
insurance, and failing to notify his client of this fact.  Diehl, 105 Ohio St.3d 469, 
2005-Ohio-2817, 828 N.E.2d 1004, at ¶  4, 6, 11. 
{¶ 20} In this case, respondent not only misappropriated $16,972.83 
belonging to an incompetent ward, but respondent’s depression and alcohol abuse 
prevented her from adequately supervising her staff.  Due to her lax supervision, 
her staff was able to file a false account and a forged affidavit in the guardianship 
proceeding. 
{¶ 21} We have recognized that “[t]he mishandling of clients’ funds either 
by way of conversion, commingling, or just poor management, encompasses an 
area of the gravest concern of this court in reviewing claimed attorney 
misconduct.”  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Thompson (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 667, 669, 
23 O.O.3d 541, 433 N.E.2d 602.  Therefore we agree with the board’s conclusion 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
that respondent’s conduct warrants a greater sanction than the parties have jointly 
recommend. Accordingly, we adopt the board’s recommended sanction and 
suspend Rebecca S. Blair from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with 18 
months stayed on the conditions that she serve 18 months of probation supervised 
by a monitor appointed by relator  in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9), remain in 
compliance with her OLAP contract and continue to receive both alcohol and 
mental-health counseling, complete 12 hours of CLE in law-office management in 
addition to the CLE requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and commit no further 
misconduct.  If respondent fails to comply with these conditions, the stay will be 
lifted, and respondent will serve the entire two-year suspension.  Costs are taxed 
to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, 
Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Michele M. Lazzaro, for respondent. 
______________________