Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Koehler

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. Koehler, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3235.] 
 
 
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-3235 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. KOEHLER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, 
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Koehler,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3235.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation and conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 
practice law—Six-month suspension, stayed on condition of no further 
misconduct. 
(No. 2011-2059—Submitted January 18, 2012—Decided July 19, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-054. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Mark William Koehler of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0061126, was admitted to the practice of law in the state of Ohio 
in 1993.  In June 2011, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint charging 
him with violating Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), (d) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of 
justice), and (h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely 
reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  On October 24, 2011, 
disciplinary counsel and Koehler stipulated that Koehler violated Prof.Cond.R. 
8.4(c), (d), and (h).  The parties also stipulated to the facts and to a sanction of a 
six-month suspension, with the term stayed in its entirety. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline conducted a hearing on the complaint and heard testimony from 
Koehler.  The panel found, and the board agreed, that Koehler violated the 
aforementioned rules.  The panel recommended that the stipulated sanction be 
imposed, and the board adopted the recommendation.  After reviewing the record, 
we adopt the recommended sanction and suspend Koehler for six months, all 
stayed. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Dennis Wilson hired Koehler to probate his wife’s estate and later 
hired him to probate his brother’s estate and serve as its administrator.  In 
September 2010, Wilson informed Koehler that an account held in his brother’s 
name at KeyBank in the amount of $13,736.86 was going to be remitted to 
unclaimed funds within 30 days.  Wilson asked Koehler to secure these funds and 
gave Koehler verbal authorization to take any necessary steps to do so.  Koehler 
discovered the account was payable on death to Wilson, and he therefore was 
unable to secure the funds as the administrator of Wilson’s brother’s estate.  
KeyBank informed Koehler that to be able to secure the funds, Koehler would 
have to obtain authorization from Wilson. 
{¶ 4} After unsuccessfully attempting to obtain authorization from 
Wilson, Koehler executed a letter of authorization in Wilson’s name.  Koehler 
took his secretary’s notary stamp and notarized the authorization, signing both his 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
secretary’s and Wilson’s name.  Koehler presented the authorization to KeyBank 
and later took possession of a check for the balance in the account.  Koehler 
deposited the check into his client trust account, finalized Wilson’s wife’s estate, 
and sent the remaining amount, $11,311.36, to Wilson. 
{¶ 5} Koehler’s secretary filed a grievance with the Office of 
Disciplinary Counsel, claiming that Koehler had improperly notarized a document 
by signing her name and using her notary stamp.  After an investigation was 
conducted, the parties stipulated to the described facts.  The parties also stipulated 
that Koehler’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), (d), and (h).  The parties 
agreed to the imposition of a six-month suspension, with the term stayed in its 
entirety. 
{¶ 6} The panel recommended approval of the stipulated sanction, and 
the board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of 
the panel. 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the 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 BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-
Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 8} Mitigating factors found by the board include the absence of a 
dishonest or selfish motive and Koehler’s lack of a prior disciplinary record.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (b).  While the board found that Koehler 
maintained a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, it found 
that Koehler did not appear remorseful.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 9} On review, we agree with the findings and recommendation of the 
board.  Koehler circumvented, for convenience, the requirements for notarizing a 
document and thereby perpetrated a fraud upon all those who relied on the 
document he produced.  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Papcke, 81 Ohio St.3d 91, 93-
94, 689 N.E.2d 549 (1998).  His actions violated the duty he owed to his client, 
the public, and the judicial system to ensure the authenticity of the documents 
executed at his direction.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Roberts, 117 Ohio St.3d 99, 
2008-Ohio-505, 881 N.E.2d 1236, ¶ 14.  Moreover, by taking his secretary’s 
notary stamp and signing and notarizing her name and his client’s name to a 
document, he engaged in actions that adversely reflect on the practice of law.  See 
id. 
{¶ 10} Therefore, we suspend Koehler from the practice of law in Ohio 
for six months.  The suspension is stayed on the condition that Koehler commit no 
further misconduct.  If Koehler violates the terms of the stay, the stay will be 
lifted, and he will serve the entire suspension.  Costs are taxed to Koehler. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol Costa, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Mark William Koehler, pro se. 
______________________