Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Shousher

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Shousher, 112 Ohio St.3d 533, 2007-Ohio-611.] 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. SHOUSHER. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Shousher, 112 Ohio St.3d 533, 2007-Ohio-611.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Failure to notify clients of lack of malpractice 
insurance—Neglect of entrusted legal matters—Failure to deposit clients’ 
funds in trust account—Failure to promptly pay funds to client—Conduct 
involving fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation—Two-year 
suspension, with 18 months stayed. 
(No. 2006-1641 — Submitted November 15, 2006 — Decided  
February 28, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-050. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Mohamed Y. Shousher of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0016006, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1980.  
On December 5, 2005, relator, Toledo Bar Association, charged respondent in an 
amended complaint with 19 counts of misconduct involving numerous violations 
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause and made findings 
of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation, all of which the board 
adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 2} The parties stipulated to nearly all the misconduct charged in 14 of 
the 19 counts in the amended complaint.  Four other counts were dismissed by 
relator, and a fifth resulted in no finding of misconduct.  Much of the misconduct 
involved respondent’s having accepted retainers from clients and then failing to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
perform promised legal services or to refund unearned fees.  At the hearing, 
respondent offered evidence of his alcohol and prescription-drug dependence in 
mitigation of this misconduct. 
Count I—Lowery 
{¶ 3} Stacy Lowery hired respondent in April 2004 to represent her in 
connection with a child-support matter, paying him $200.  Respondent admittedly 
did not deposit the unearned fees into his client trust account, nor did he complete 
the work for which he had been hired.  He also did not notify his client as required 
that he did not maintain professional liability insurance. 
{¶ 4} Respondent stipulated and the board found relative to Count I that 
he had violated DR 1-104 (requiring a lawyer to notify clients if the lawyer does 
not maintain specified amounts of malpractice insurance), 6-101(A)(3) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter), and 9-102(A) 
(requiring a lawyer to deposit client funds in a separate identifiable bank account). 
Count II—Roberts 
{¶ 5} Brian and Jean Roberts hired respondent around March 31, 2004, 
to defend Brian against criminal charges in Toledo Municipal Court, paying him 
$100 on that day and $100 soon afterward.  On June 16, 2004, Brian was arrested 
in Wood County, Ohio, and his mother gave respondent $500 to obtain Brian’s 
release at a hearing to be held the next day.  Respondent admitted that he did not 
appear at the hearing, although he claimed that it was because he thought that 
Brian had agreed to a public defender’s representation.  Respondent also admitted 
that he did not perform all the work for which he had been paid, that he did not 
deposit the unearned fees into a client trust account, and that he did not refund 
unearned fees upon discharge. 
{¶ 6} Respondent stipulated and the board found relative to Count II that 
he had violated DR 1-104 and 9-102(A). 
Count III—Myrick 
January Term, 2007 
3 
{¶ 7} Anthony and Zelda Myrick hired respondent in 2004 to file 
separate bankruptcy petitions on their behalf, paying him $1,100.  Respondent 
admitted that he did not perform all the work for which he had been paid and that 
he did not deposit the unearned fees into his client trust account.  He also did not 
notify his clients as required that he did not maintain professional liability 
insurance. 
{¶ 8} Respondent stipulated and the board found relative to Count III 
that he had violated DR 1-104, 6-101(A)(3), 9-102(A), and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring 
a lawyer to promptly pay to the client funds that the client is entitled to receive). 
Count IV—Borgelt-Zonker 
{¶ 9} Barb Borgelt-Zonker hired respondent in January 2003 to complete 
a marriage dissolution, paying him $500.  Respondent did not deposit the 
unearned fees into a client trust account, nor did he complete the work for which 
he had been paid or refund unearned fees to his client upon request. 
{¶ 10} Respondent stipulated and the board found relative to Count IV 
that he had violated DR 1-104, 6-101(A)(3), 9-102(A), and 9-102(B)(4). 
Count V— Pitts 
{¶ 11} Ronal Pitts hired respondent in May 2004 to represent Tiara 
Nelson in connection with a criminal charge in Perrysburg Municipal Court, 
paying him $250.  Respondent did not deposit these unearned fees into a client 
trust account.  He also failed to provide any legal services for Nelson, he did not 
refund Pitts’s fees when asked, and he did not notify his client as required that he 
did not maintain professional liability insurance. 
{¶ 12} Respondent stipulated and the board found relative to Count V that 
he had violated DR 1-104, 6-101(A)(3), 9-102(A), and 9-102(B)(4). 
Count VIII—Abdouni 
{¶ 13} Nazim Abdouni hired respondent in July 2004 to file for a 
dissolution of marriage.  Abdouni paid respondent $550 in legal and filing fees.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Respondent did not complete promised legal services, failed to place unearned 
fees in a client trust account, and failed to refund unearned fees on request.  
Respondent also failed to notify his client as required that he did not maintain 
professional liability insurance. 
{¶ 14} Respondent stipulated and the board found relative to Count VIII 
that he had violated DR 1-104, 6-101(A)(3), 9-102(A), and 9-102(B)(4). 
Count X— Kormad 
{¶ 15} Feadora Kormad hired respondent in July 2004 to defend her 
boyfriend against criminal charges, paying him $360.  Respondent met the 
boyfriend in jail, but failed to appear on his behalf at an August 2, 2004 court 
hearing.  Respondent also did not provide other promised legal services, and he 
failed to deposit the unearned fees in a client trust account.  He further failed to 
refund the unearned fees on request, and he did not notify his client that he lacked 
malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 16} Respondent stipulated and the board found relative to Count X that 
respondent had violated DR 1-104, 6-101(A)(3), 9-102(A), and 9-102(B)(4). 
Count XI—Cunningham 
{¶ 17} Mark Cunningham hired respondent in July 2004 to help his 
brothers obtain release from federal custody, paying him $280.  Respondent did 
nothing for the brothers, and he did not place the unearned fees in a client trust 
account.  He also did not refund the unearned fees on request, and he further 
failed to notify his clients that he lacked malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 18} Respondent stipulated and the board found relative to Count XI 
that respondent had violated DR 1-104, 9-102(A), and 9-102(B)(4). 
Count XII—Ragland 
{¶ 19} In 2004, respondent borrowed $870 from Dartanyon Ragland.  In 
attempting to repay the debt, respondent wrote a series of checks that his bank 
dishonored.  Respondent stipulated and the board found that he had thereby 
January Term, 2007 
5 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). 
Count XIV – Horton 
{¶ 20} Laurie Kincaid paid respondent $700 to defend Nathan Horton 
during 2003 against criminal charges.  Respondent appeared at a scheduled court 
date but was denied permission to enter an appearance because, he learned, other 
counsel had been appointed for Horton.  Respondent did not deposit Kincaid’s 
unearned fees in a client trust account, he did not refund her money on request, 
and he did not notify his client that he lacked malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 21} Respondent stipulated and the board found relative to Count XIV 
that respondent had violated DR 1-104, 9-102(A), and 9-102(B)(4). 
Count XV—Johnson 
{¶ 22} Bonnie and Troy Johnson hired respondent in June 2004 to 
represent them in a bankruptcy case, paying him $550.  Respondent did nothing 
for the Johnsons, he did not deposit the unearned fees in a client trust account, and 
he did not refund their money on request.  Respondent also failed to notify his 
clients that he lacked malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 23} Respondent stipulated and the board found relative to Count XV 
that respondent had violated DR 1-104, 9-102(A), and 9-102(B)(4). 
Count XVI—Butler 
{¶ 24} Donnell Butler hired respondent in April 2004 to represent him in 
a criminal case, paying him $200.  Respondent did not perform promised legal 
services, he failed to deposit the unearned fees in a client trust account, and he did 
not refund the fees on request.  He also did not notify his client that he lacked 
malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 25} Respondent stipulated and the board found relative to Count XVI 
that he had violated DR 1-104, 6-101(A)(3), 9-102(A), and 9-102(B)(4). 
Count XVIII—Graves 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 26} Respondent borrowed $3,000 from Brian Graves in April 2004.  In 
attempting to repay the debt, respondent wrote four checks to Graves from his 
client trust account, all of which were dishonored by his bank for insufficient 
funds.  Respondent later paid $3,000 to the Client Security Fund, and in July 
2005, the fund paid the sum to Graves.  Respondent stipulated and the board 
found that he had thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(4). 
Count XIX—Criminal Charges 
{¶ 27} During 2004, respondent obtained two credit cards by completing 
applications in his ex-wife’s name without her authority.  He wrote a $200 check 
on one credit card account, signing the check with his ex-wife’s name without her 
authority, and used the money to pay his secretary.  Respondent charged $236.96 
on the second credit card and made a $50 payment to the account with a money 
order on which he had signed his ex-wife’s name, all again without her authority.  
Respondent was charged with two counts of forgery and one count of identity 
theft and pleaded guilty, but he was granted intervention in lieu of conviction, see 
R.C. 2951.041,  and placed on probation. 
{¶ 28} Respondent stipulated and the board found relative to Count XIX 
that he had violated DR 1-102(A)(4). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 29} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
board weighed the mitigating and aggravating features of his case.  See 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.”). 
{¶ 30} Respondent’s testimony about his battle first with alcohol 
addiction and later to prescription pain medication was of considerable mitigating 
effect.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).  The board noted respondent’s abuse of 
alcohol during the 1980s and that he had stopped drinking alcohol during 1989.  
January Term, 2007 
7 
In 1999, however, respondent quickly became addicted to pain medication after 
having three surgeries in a short period of time.  He twice entered inpatient 
treatment facilities and participated in a half-dozen other recovery programs for 
this addiction prior to 2004, but was unable to stop abusing his painkilling drugs.  
Finally, in August 2004, he entered a recovery treatment center in Florida, and he 
has remained sober, with the help of that and other treatment programs, since 
August 10, 2004. 
{¶ 31} Timothy Sweeney, program director for HealthCare Connection in 
Tampa, Florida, the chemical-dependence treatment center that respondent 
entered in August 2004, testified to respondent’s dedication to and resolve in 
remaining sober.  Scott Mote, executive director of the Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”), gave particularly poignant testimony as to the nature of 
addiction and his personal observations of respondent’s recovery, sobriety, and 
evident desire to remain in the practice of law. 
{¶ 32} In further mitigation of his misconduct, the board found that from 
the outset, respondent had taken complete responsibility for all his misconduct.  
He also had no prior disciplinary record and fully cooperated in the disciplinary 
proceedings.  Gov.Bar R. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  The board also observed that 
respondent had already made full restitution in the amount of $8,200 to all those 
he had injured, where necessary through arrangements with his counsel.  In 
addition, respondent submitted numerous character letters from attorneys and 
judges extolling his character and competence apart from his dependence-induced 
neglect and other misconduct.  Relator did not identify, and the board did not find, 
evidence of aggravating factors warranting severity. 
{¶ 33} Relator requested respondent’s indefinite suspension from the 
practice of law.  Respondent advocated a two-year suspension with 18 months 
stayed.  Adopting the panel’s report, the board recommended a two-year 
suspension with 18 months stayed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
Review 
{¶ 34} “Consistently with ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 
(1992), Preface and Standard 3.0, when imposing a sanction for attorney 
misconduct, we consider the duties violated, the actual or potential injury caused, 
the attorney's mental state, the existence of aggravating or mitigating 
circumstances, and sanctions imposed in similar cases.”  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Ake, 111 Ohio St.3d 266, 2006-Ohio-5704, 855 N.E.2d 1206, ¶ 44.  We adopt the 
board’s findings of misconduct relative to the duties he violated under our 
Disciplinary Rules.  We further accept the board’s findings as to the mitigating 
effect of respondent’s dependence and recovery, his full restitution, lack of a 
disciplinary history, and his reputation.  All that is left is to consult precedent. 
{¶ 35} Of the cases cited by the board and the parties, we agree that 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Washington, 109 Ohio St.3d 308, 2006-Ohio-2423, 847 
N.E.2d 435, is most analogous.  In Washington, a lawyer billed multiple 
insurance-company clients more than $91,000 for work that he did not perform 
and converted retainer fees of $3,000 and $1,000 to his own use during a 19-
month period of cocaine and alcohol abuse.  We held that a two-year suspension, 
with 18 months stayed on conditions of OLAP supervision, was warranted not 
only to protect the public but to ensure the lawyer’s recovery from cocaine and 
alcohol dependence.  There, as here, full restitution was made to the clients, the 
lawyer had no prior disciplinary record, the lawyer cooperated completely in the 
disciplinary proceedings, and he demonstrated a commitment to recovering from 
the addictions that contributed to his misconduct. 
{¶ 36} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for two years; however, 18 months of this suspension are stayed on the 
condition that respondent continue to comply with his OLAP recovery contract 
and commit no further misconduct.  If respondent violates the conditions of the 
January Term, 2007 
9 
stay, the stay will be lifted and respondent shall serve the entire two-year 
suspension. Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR 
and 
O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Frederickson, Heintschel, & King Co., L.P.A., and Craig F. Frederickson; 
Robison, Curphy & O’Connell and James E. Brazeau; and Jonathan B. Cherry, 
Bar Counsel, for relator. 
 
James D. Caruso, for respondent. 
______________________