Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Freedman

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Freedman, 110 Ohio St.3d 284, 2006-Ohio-4480.] 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FREEDMAN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Freedman,  
110 Ohio St.3d 284, 2006-Ohio-4480.] 
Attorneys at law – Misconduct – Six-month suspension, stayed on condition – 
Engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law — 
Engaging 
in 
conduct 
involving 
dishonesty, 
fraud, 
deceit, 
or 
misrepresentation. 
(No. 2006-0067 -– Submitted March 15, 2006 — Decided September 13, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-079. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Howard Joel Freedman of Chagrin Falls, Ohio, 
Attorney Registration No. 0016247, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 
1970. 
{¶ 2} On December 6, 2004, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged 
respondent with having allowed improper notarization of his wife’s signature on 
loan documents and with having thereby violated the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline held a hearing at which respondent testified and stipulations and 
exhibits were submitted.  The panel made findings of misconduct, which the 
board adopted, and a recommendation, which the board modified, recommending 
a more lenient sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent practices in commercial-real-estate and business law.  
In 2002, respondent obtained a $70,000 loan from JAAL, Inc.  The loan was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
secured by a second mortgage on property in Pepper Pike, Ohio, that respondent 
co-owned with his wife, Rita Montlack.  The loan terms also required respondent 
to sign a cognovit note and to execute with his wife a quitclaim deed transferring 
the property to JAAL in case of default. 
{¶ 4} The mortgage instrument and deed required respondent’s and 
Montlack’s notarized signatures, and the jurat on each document applied to 
authenticate both signatures.  On April 21, 2002, respondent asked Lorna J. Fried, 
an associate attorney in his office who routinely acted as a notary for him, to 
notarize the signatures.  Respondent signed the mortgage and deed, but he left 
blank the signature lines for his wife’s name.  Fried notarized both documents.  
Fried filed an affidavit in this case stating that she had trusted that respondent 
would not ask her to improperly notarize a document, and therefore she did not 
examine the jurat language and did not realize that she was notarizing Montlack’s 
signature despite the fact that it did not appear on either the mortgage or the deed. 
{¶ 5} After Fried notarized the mortgage and deed, respondent signed 
Montlack’s name on both documents.  Respondent and JAAL consummated the 
loan, and in April 2002, JAAL recorded the mortgage on the Pepper Pike 
property. 
{¶ 6} In November 2002, Montlack filed for divorce, and her complaint 
included JAAL as a defendant.  JAAL counterclaimed, attempting to establish 
that Montlack’s one-half interest in the Pepper Pike property was encumbered by 
JAAL’s lien.  In reply, Montlack alleged that she had not authorized respondent to 
sign the mortgage or the quitclaim deed on her behalf and that her purported 
signatures were forgeries.  In November 2003, however, Montlack signed an 
affidavit to the effect that she had “authorized and/or ratified” respondent’s 
signing her name on the mortgage and deed and waived all claims and defenses 
she had concerning the execution of those documents. 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 7} Respondent eventually defaulted on the first and second mortgages 
on the Pepper Pike property, and in March 2003, JAAL obtained a judgment 
against him for $72,275 plus interest.  The property was sold in a foreclosure sale, 
but the proceeds were insufficient to satisfy any of JAAL’s judgment. 
{¶ 8} At the panel hearing, respondent testified that although he did not 
have his wife’s specific authority to sign the JAAL mortgage and quitclaim deed, 
she had always allowed him to sign financial documents for her prior to this 
transaction and he thought he had signed with her consent.  Respondent also 
claimed that his wife did not suffer financially from the transaction because she is 
not responsible for the debt to JAAL and they would have lost the Pepper Pike 
property anyway due to financial problems. 
{¶ 9} The board did not find any misconduct with respect to 
respondent’s signing the documents on Montlack’s behalf.  Respondent stipulated 
and the board found, however, that by having the mortgage and deed notarized 
improperly, respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct 
involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation) and 1-102(A)(6) 
(prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice). 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 10} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel and 
board weighed 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.”).  
Both found an aggravating factor in that respondent had acted with a dishonest 
motive.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b). 
{¶ 11} In mitigation, the panel and board found that respondent had no 
prior record of professional discipline and was very cooperative and forthcoming 
throughout the disciplinary process.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  
Respondent also had expressed genuine remorse, sadness, and embarrassment 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
over his misconduct, especially because he had involved Fried in it.  The panel 
and board further found that respondent is of good character, has a fine 
professional reputation, and is very active in the community, including serving on 
the Cleveland Bar Association’s real-estate-law committee and the boards of 
several nonprofit organizations. 
{¶ 12} The parties jointly recommended a public reprimand, citing 
precedent that they believed supported that sanction.  The panel determined that 
the cases cited by the parties were distinguishable from this case, observing that 
those cases had involved technical violations of a notary public’s responsibilities, 
whereas respondent had intentionally had the mortgage and deed notarized 
improperly.  Finding respondent’s misconduct to be more egregious than the 
misconduct in the cited cases, the panel recommended that respondent’s license to 
practice be suspended for six months, but that the suspension be stayed provided 
that respondent commit no further misconduct, and that respondent be placed on 
probation for one year. 
{¶ 13} The board recommended that respondent receive a public 
reprimand for his violations of DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6). 
Review 
{¶ 14} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6), as 
found by the board.  For the reasons cited by the panel, however, we hold that a 
stayed six-month suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
{¶ 15} In Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Melnick, 107 Ohio St.3d 240, 2005-
Ohio-6265, 837 N.E.2d 1203, and Columbus Bar Assn. v. Dougherty, 105 Ohio 
St.3d 307, 2005-Ohio-1825, 825 N.E.2d 1094, we publicly reprimanded lawyers 
who avoided for their convenience the requirements of proper notarization.  The 
lawyer in Dougherty notarized a signature on a liquor-permit application without 
witnessing the signing.  The lawyer in Melnick committed similar misconduct 
with respect to several signatures. 
January Term, 2006 
5 
{¶ 16} Respondent did not simply circumvent for convenience the 
notarization requirements.  He took advantage of Fried’s carelessness and 
consciously signed Montlack’s name to the documents after they had been 
notarized.  Though respondent had his wife’s authority to act on her behalf, his 
misconduct nevertheless required JAAL to defend against allegations in 
Montlack’s divorce action. 
{¶ 17} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for six months; however, the suspension is stayed on the condition that 
respondent commit no further misconduct during the six-month stay.  If 
respondent violates the condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and 
respondent shall serve the entire six-month suspension. 
{¶ 18} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
RESNICK, PFEIFER, O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
MOYER, C.J., LUNDBERG STRATTON and O’CONNOR, JJ., concur in 
judgment. 
__________________ 
O’CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment. 
{¶19} I concur in judgment but write separately to clarify that the 
misconduct that respondent engaged in was in fact contrary to law and may have 
caused the mortgage to be invalid. 
{¶20} A mortgage must be signed by the mortgagor or mortgagors, and 
acknowledged before a judge, clerk of court, county auditor, county engineer, 
notary public, or mayor for certification.  R.C. 5301.01(A).  In the instant matter, 
the mortgage was not signed by one of the mortgagors, respondent’s wife.  
Rather, her name was signed on her behalf by the co-mortgagor, respondent, in 
violation of R.C. 5301.01(A).  There is no procedure in the Revised Code to give 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
authority to sign a mortgage on another’s behalf other than a valid power of 
attorney. 
{¶21} R.C. 5309.74 states: “Before any person can convey, transfer, 
charge, or deal with any registered land, or any interest therein, as an attorney in 
fact for another, the deed or instrument empowering such person to so act shall be 
filed with the county recorder, and a memorial thereof entered upon the registered 
certificate of title giving the exact time of the filing.”  Further, R.C. 1337.04 
requires that “[a] power of attorney for the conveyance, mortgage, or lease of an 
interest in real property must be recorded in the office of the county recorder of 
the county in which such property is situated, previous to the recording of a deed, 
mortgage, or lease by virtue of such power of attorney.” 
{¶22} Although the majority suggests that respondent had authority to 
sign the documents on his wife’s behalf, simple authority is insufficient. Real 
property conveyances, including mortgages, require a recorded power of attorney 
before one may sign for another. R.C. 5309.74 and 1337.04.  A failure to properly 
acknowledge a mortgage may result in its being unenforceable against third 
parties.  Citizens Natl. Bank in Zanesville v. Denison (1956), 165 Ohio St. 89, 95, 
59 O.O. 96, 133 N.E.2d 329. 
{¶23}  Therefore, respondent’s actions constituted no light matter. 
However, I believe that the sanction imposed is appropriate in the particular 
circumstances of this case and thus concur in the judgment. 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concur in the foregoing 
opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph M. Caligiuri, for 
relator. 
 
Howard Joel Freedman, pro se. 
______________________