Title: Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Arkow

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Arkow, 104 Ohio St.3d 265, 2004-Ohio-6512.] 
 
 
STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. ARKOW . 
[Cite as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Arkow, 104 Ohio St.3d 265, 2004-Ohio-6512.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Failure 
to carry out contract of employment — Communication with judge without 
adequate notice to opposing counsel — One-year suspension stayed on 
conditions — Actual suspension from the practice of law not required 
when misrepresentation of information was not intentional. 
(No. 2004-1008 — Submitted August 17, 2004 — Decided December 15, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-080. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Seth W. Arkow of Canton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0069103, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1998.  
On October 6, 2003, relator, Stark County Bar Association, charged respondent 
with three counts of professional misconduct.  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause and, based on the 
parties’ stipulations, testimony, and exhibits, made findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and a recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
Count One 
{¶2} 
Respondent has a private law practice with a concentration in 
family law.  He practices mainly in Stark County but also has an office in 
Tuscarawas County.  In May 2001, respondent and another Stark County lawyer 
with whom he had formerly shared office space entered into a partnership 
agreement. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
Before and after this agreement, respondent’s partner represented 
Kathy S. Fowler (n.k.a. Simons) in a domestic-relations case pending in the Stark 
County Court of Common Pleas.  According to a June 2000 entry of dissolution 
filed in the Fowler case, the parties were to retain an expert to prepare a qualified-
domestic- relations order (“QDRO”) that divided the pension benefits accrued by 
Fowler’s ex-husband. 
{¶4} 
In February 2001, respondent’s partner asked for a $150 check, 
which he eventually received, from Fowler’s ex-husband to pay half of the 
anticipated cost for retaining a consultant to prepare the QDRO.  At about the 
same time, Fowler remitted a $150 check, representing her share of the 
consultant’s fee.  Before the arrangements to complete the QDRO could be made, 
however, respondent’s partner quit the partnership and moved away. 
{¶5} 
Although their written partnership agreement did not specify that 
respondent would assume Fowler’s representation after the partner’s departure, 
they orally agreed to this.  Thus, when Fowler filed a grievance with relator in 
September 2001, complaining that no one had finished arrangements for the 
QDRO, relator inquired of respondent as to the reason.  In reply, respondent 
promised to complete the QDRO. 
{¶6} 
To this end, Fowler gave respondent a new check for $150 made 
payable to the QDRO consultant.  Respondent also had a check issued on a 
partnership account to pay the husband’s $150 share of the consultant fee.  
Respondent submitted these two checks, along with a letter and application, on 
December 10, 2001, to QDRO Consultants. 
{¶7} 
In January 2002, respondent represented to relator’s investigator 
that he had resolved the QDRO situation for Fowler and had “put the matter to 
rest.”  Respondent later learned, however, that the consultant had wanted $350 to 
prepare the QDRO, $50 more than respondent had paid.  Then, in the spring of 
2002, one of respondent’s employees told the consultant to stop work on the 
January Term, 2004 
3 
Fowler case.  The consultant did and returned the $300 previously paid to his 
company.  Respondent deposited the $300 in his IOLTA account. 
{¶8} 
Respondent did not promptly advise Fowler or relator that the 
QDRO project had stalled, and in August 2002, the investigator contacted 
respondent to inquire again about the status of the QDRO.  On January 2, 2003, 
respondent sent a letter to the investigator stating, “I have forwarded the sum of 
$350 to QDRO Consultants, and they are preparing the necessary documents.”  In 
reality, however, respondent never did pay this sum or rehire the consulting 
company. 
{¶9} 
On January 28, 2003, relator’s investigator asked respondent why 
he had not paid the QDRO consultants $350 as represented.  Respondent did not 
respond to the investigator’s letter, nor did he ever complete the Fowler QDRO.  
In March 2004, however, respondent refunded the $300 owed to Fowler and her 
ex-husband by mailing trust-account checks to relator. 
{¶10} The parties stipulated and the board found that respondent had 
violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect an entrusted legal matter) and 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (a lawyer shall not neglect or refuse to assist in an 
investigation) in connection with Count One.  The board also found a violation of 
DR 7-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not intentionally fail to carry out a contract of 
employment). 
Count Two 
{¶11} In March 2002, attorney Derek Lowry filed a complaint in the 
Stark County Juvenile Court on behalf of a father seeking custody of his minor 
son.  On March 11, 2002, the court granted temporary custody of the child to his 
father.  At a hearing on April 23, 2002, the child’s mother appeared, and the court 
appointed attorney Douglas Bond to represent her.  At a July 2002 pretrial 
conference, Lowry and Bond, appearing without their clients, advised the court 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
that the parties were living together and that an agreed entry as to their child’s 
custody would be submitted within 30 days. 
{¶12} Thereafter, the counsel for the parties failed to timely file the 
agreed entry.  As a result, counsel assumed that the case would be dismissed in 
accordance with the usual practice of the juvenile court.  The custody case, 
however, was not dismissed. 
{¶13} In early January 2003, the child’s paternal grandparents retained 
respondent to obtain visitation rights for them and an order granting permanent 
custody to them or their son.  After reviewing the court file in the case, 
respondent learned that the juvenile case remained open although the agreed entry 
had not been filed.  Concerned that the custody case might be dismissed because 
of the failure to file the agreed entry and the passage of time, respondent prepared 
a draft order for submission to the court that granted custody of the child to his 
father, joined the paternal grandparents as parties to the action, and granted 
visitation rights to the grandparents. 
{¶14} On January 9, 2003, respondent attempted to advise Bond, the 
mother’s attorney, that he intended to present the proposed order to the court the 
following day.  Respondent was unable to reach Bond so he placed in Bond’s 
mailbox at the court the proposed order and a letter indicating that respondent 
planned to seek the judge’s approval on “Friday, January 20, 2003” at 10:00 a.m.  
Respondent’s letter misstated the next day’s date, which was actually January 10, 
2003. 
{¶15} On the morning of January 10, 2003, Lowry saw Bond in the Stark 
County courthouse and told Bond that he and respondent were going to meet with 
the judge concerning the proposed order at 10:00 a.m.  Bond, who had not yet 
seen either the letter or the proposed order, had been unaware of the planned 
meeting and did not appear.  The judge signed the order that morning in Lowry’s 
and respondent’s presence. 
January Term, 2004 
5 
{¶16} Bond later filed a motion to vacate the order because neither he nor 
his client had agreed to it.  Ultimately, the parties signed and filed another 
judgment entry that contained terms agreeable to the parents and that removed the 
paternal grandparents as parties.  Until that time, the child had remained in his 
mother’s custody despite the order that respondent had prepared. 
{¶17} The parties stipulated and the board found that respondent had 
violated DR 7-110(B) (a lawyer shall not communicate with a judge in an 
adversary proceeding about the merits of the cause without adequate notice to 
opposing counsel) in connection with Count Two. 
Count Three 
{¶18} In November 2001, another client retained respondent to represent 
him in the Stark County Juvenile Court concerning child support for the client’s 
two minor children, visitation, and name changes.  At a hearing on July 26, 2002, 
respondent promised to prepare a judgment entry setting forth settlement terms to 
which the parties had agreed; however, he did not present the judgment entry in a 
timely fashion.  On October 30, 2002, counsel for the children’s mother filed a 
motion to dismiss the case, and the court entered a dismissal on the same day. 
{¶19} From July 26, 2002, until December 2002, respondent’s client 
made numerous attempts to learn the status of the case.  Respondent failed to 
return the client’s calls and canceled, without rescheduling, a meeting at his 
office. 
{¶20} On December 31, 2002, respondent filed a motion to reopen the 
client’s case and a proposed final-judgment entry reflecting the agreement 
reached by the parties on July 26, 2002.  The judge immediately granted the 
motion to reopen and signed the judgment entry, changing terms relative to 
visitation and also decreeing that the children’s names would be changed only 
upon motion. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶21} Respondent’s delay in preparing and filing the judgment entry 
caused his client to miss a Christmas visit with his children.  The delay also 
caused the client to retain other counsel.  And because the children’s mother had 
withheld visitation after July 26, 2002, respondent’s delay prevented the client 
from taking advantage of other visitation terms to which the parties had also 
agreed on that day. 
{¶22} The parties stipulated and the board found that respondent had 
committed a second violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) in connection with Count Three. 
Sanction 
{¶23} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  As 
aggravating features, the board found that respondent’s neglect of two clients and 
ex parte communication displayed a pattern of misconduct and multiple offenses.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d).  Moreover, respondent’s misconduct 
affected the lives of clients who are among the most vulnerable – those with cases 
pending in a family court.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h).  The board also noted 
that respondent had misinformed relator’s investigator as to the status of the 
QDRO in Count One. 
{¶24} As mitigating factors, the board found that respondent had no prior 
record of discipline, had repaid the $300 for the QDRO consultant in Count One, 
had eventually cooperated in the disciplinary process, and is reputed to be 
professionally competent and of good character.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), 
(c), (d), and (e).  Respondent also acknowledged the wrongful nature of his 
conduct and did not commit the misconduct out of self-interest.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(b).  Moreover, evidence showed that respondent had suffered from 
“Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood” during some of the underlying 
January Term, 2004 
7 
events and has since been successfully treated for his condition.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(g). 
{¶25} The board recommended, consistent with the parties’ stipulations, 
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year, with the entire 
year of suspension stayed on the conditions that respondent agree to supervision 
by a monitoring attorney and complete a variety of additional continuing legal 
education (“CLE”) courses. 
{¶26} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) 
and 7-110(B) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) as found by the board.  We further agree 
that a one-year suspension, stayed on the recommended conditions, is appropriate. 
{¶27} In adopting the panel’s report, the board observed that “but for the 
Respondent’s misrepresentation to the Relator regarding the status of the QDRO, 
a much lesser sanction than that agreed to by the parties would be appropriate in 
this matter.”  With this statement, the board referred to the rule that professional 
misconduct involving dishonesty ordinarily requires an actual suspension, see, 
e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Jaffe, 102 Ohio St.3d 273, 2004-Ohio-2685, 809 
N.E.2d 1122, although a stay may be warranted based on mitigating 
circumstances,  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Statzer, 101 Ohio St.3d 14, 2003-Ohio-
6649, 800 N.E.2d 1117, ¶ 21. 
{¶28} Respondent testified that he had become frustrated with his former 
partner’s lack of assistance in contending with clients before and after the 
partner’s departure.  He also explained that after writing to relator’s investigator 
about having paid the consultant in Fowler’s case, he got distracted and didn’t 
follow through to finish the job as he should have.  Concluding that “the parties 
have confronted the realities of the Respondent’s conduct in this regard,” the 
board was obviously satisfied that respondent had not intentionally 
misrepresented information during the investigation and, therefore, an actual 
suspension was not required.  In fact, relator withdrew a charge that respondent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving fraud, 
deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation).  The board thus accepted, with slight 
modification, the parties’ suggested sanction. 
{¶29} We concur in the board’s assessment, and having found the cited 
misconduct, we also adopt the board’s recommendation.  Respondent is therefore 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year; however, the suspension 
is stayed on the following conditions: 
{¶30} 1.  Respondent shall be placed on probation during the one year of 
his stayed suspension pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9) and submit to the supervision 
of a monitoring attorney, to be approved by relator, who will offer counsel 
concerning respondent’s law-office management and other issues that arise in his 
law practice.  Respondent shall meet with the monitoring attorney at least 
monthly; and  
{¶31} 2. In addition to the requirements otherwise imposed upon him by 
Gov.Bar R. X(3), respondent shall also complete ten hours of accredited CLE on 
family law, two hours of CLE on ethics, and one hour of CLE on law-office 
management during the suspension. 
{¶32} If respondent violates either of these conditions, the stay will be 
lifted, and respondent shall serve the entire year of suspension.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Richard S. Milligan, Bar Counsel, Wendy J. Rockenfelder and James M. 
Conley, for relator. 
 
Charles L. Richards, for respondent. 
_______________________