Title: Northwest Ohio Bar Assn. v. Archer

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Northwest Ohio Bar Assn. v. Archer, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-3142.] 
 
 
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-3142 
NORTHWEST OHIO BAR ASSOCIATION v. ARCHER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Northwest Ohio Bar Assn. v. Archer,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-3142.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct involving dishonesty — One-year license 
suspension. 
(No. 2010-2270 — Submitted February 16, 2011 — Decided July 5, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-015. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Stephen Robert Archer of Defiance, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0031376, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978.  
On August 11, 1993, we publicly reprimanded him for neglecting a client’s 
bankruptcy matter.  Northwest Ohio Bar Assn. v. Archer (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 
97, 616 N.E.2d 210, 211. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} On February 8, 2010, relator, Northwest Ohio Bar Association, 
filed a complaint alleging that respondent had committed several violations of the 
Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to submit the requisite forms 
or pay unemployment taxes and by failing to remit the federal-, state-, and local-
income-tax and Medicare and Social Security withholdings from his secretary’s 
wages to the proper governmental authorities. 
{¶ 3} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievance and 
Discipline heard the cause and considered the parties’ joint stipulations of fact, 
law, and proposed penalties.  The panel adopted the parties’ stipulated facts and 
Disciplinary Rule violations, but rejected some of the stipulated aggravating and 
mitigating factors and proposed sanction. 
{¶ 4} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and misconduct and 
concluded that respondent has engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation and that his conduct adversely reflects on his fitness 
to practice law. 
{¶ 5} Citing respondent’s prior disciplinary record, his “mixed 
appreciation” for the gravity of his misconduct, and the subsequent lapse of his 
malpractice insurance and failure to inform his clients that he is not insured, the 
board has rejected the parties’ stipulated sanction of a one-year partially stayed 
suspension and recommends that we suspend respondent from the practice of law 
for one full year.  No objections have been filed. 
{¶ 6} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and 
conclusions of law and suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for 
one year. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 7} Respondent’s misconduct came to light when his secretary 
separated from her employment and applied for unemployment-compensation 
benefits in February 2008.  Because respondent had neither filed the appropriate 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
forms nor paid unemployment taxes from late 2004 until February 1, 2008, as 
required by Ohio law, the secretary’s claim was denied.  After receiving an 
unfavorable judgment on appeal, the secretary filed a grievance with relator.  By 
April 8, 2008, the necessary paperwork had been filed, and all taxes and penalties 
had been paid.  As a result, the secretary’s application for unemployment benefits 
was approved.  Approximately seven weeks after she had applied, she received 
unemployment benefits retroactive to the date of her original application. 
{¶ 8} Relator’s investigation also revealed that during the secretary’s 
employment, respondent withheld local, state, and federal taxes — including 
income, Medicare, and Social Security taxes — from the secretary’s wages but 
failed to remit the taxes and the requisite paperwork to the appropriate 
governmental authorities.  Instead, he converted these funds for his own use.  The 
parties, however, have not stipulated the amount of the funds converted, relator 
did not offer the secretary’s W-2’s into evidence, and the respondent testified that 
the amounts he recalled paying included the payment of his delinquent personal-
income taxes and penalties.  Nonetheless, the record clearly and convincingly 
demonstrates that respondent has violated 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) and 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).1  
Sanction 
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 
                                                 
1 Respondent’s misconduct occurred both before and after February 1, 2007, the effective date of 
the Rules of Professional Conduct, which supersede the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility. Although both the former and current rules are cited for the same 
acts, the allegations comprise a single continuing ethical violation. Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Freeman, 119 Ohio St.3d 330, 2008-Ohio-3836, 894 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 1, fn. 1. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
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. 
{¶ 10} The parties have stipulated that respondent’s prior disciplinary 
record is an aggravating factor.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a).  The board 
also found that respondent’s failure to pay his unemployment taxes and to remit 
multiple tax withholdings to the appropriate governmental authorities constitute 
multiple offenses and that his failures harmed a vulnerable employee.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d) and (h).  In addition, the board recognized the lapse of 
respondent’s malpractice insurance, coupled with his failure to inform his clients 
of that lapse as required by Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c), as an aggravating factor. 
{¶ 11} As mitigating factors, the parties stipulated and the board found 
that respondent has paid monetary sanctions in the form of penalties for the late 
payment of taxes and has demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward these 
disciplinary proceedings.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c), and (d). 
{¶ 12} The parties also stipulated that respondent has submitted character 
letters from two attorneys and a former client.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e).  
The first attorney, who has known respondent for almost 30 years, wrote that 
respondent  “is very conscientious, very thorough in his preparation, and very 
caring in his dealing with clients,” that he has found [respondent’s] ethical 
standards to be “above reproach,” and that respondent is “an honest and good man 
and a fine lawyer.”  The second attorney has known respondent for approximately 
20 years and has dealt with him regularly, primarily in the context of domestic 
relations.  She states that she has known respondent “to be very honest and 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
forthright and [has] never even had an inkling or a concern as to the truth or 
veracity of anything he has said.”  She reports, “[H]e is perceived by the local bar 
as being very honest” and that she considers him to be a “good man.”  The final 
letter, from a client who has known respondent for almost 30 years, having 
retained him to handle both business and personal matters, states that respondent 
has “always performed ethically, properly and efficiently for [him] and the 
company.”  He believes that respondent “is a good man and * * * an outstanding 
attorney!” 
{¶ 13} The board, however, rejected the parties’ stipulation that 
respondent’s conduct was not driven by a dishonest or selfish motive, observing 
that he had offered several explanations for his misconduct and that his 
expressions of remorse were inconsistent.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b). 
{¶ 14} Respondent stated that his financial situation was “[n]ot great” 
when the secretary called him out of the blue seeking work, and he claimed that 
various health problems, including diabetes and a minor stroke, had made it hard 
for him to concentrate.  He testified that his business had ebbed and flowed and 
that he had had just barely the income to fund the secretary’s net paycheck.  He 
stated that once he had let the tax payments lapse, it was easy to continue that 
pattern. 
{¶ 15} Although respondent expected a large settlement to be “the pot of 
gold that could make everything right,” he claimed that his plan derailed when he 
suffered a heart attack and required quintuple-bypass surgery just one week after 
the settlement was paid.  Despite some expressions of remorse, he cast himself as 
the victim of his circumstances and blamed his spiteful secretary for exploiting his 
misconduct.  But respondent offered no documentary evidence to substantiate any 
of this testimony.  Moreover, the board observed that respondent had stipulated to 
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 16} The parties have stipulated that a one-year suspension with six 
months stayed is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct.  In support 
of that sanction, they have cited Toledo Bar Assn. v. Abood, 104 Ohio St.3d 655, 
2004-Ohio-7015, 821 N.E.2d 560, Disciplinary Counsel v. Large, 122 Ohio St.3d 
35, 2009-Ohio-2022, 907 N.E.2d 1162, and Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bruner, 98 
Ohio St.3d 312, 2003-Ohio-736, 784 N.E.2d 687. 
{¶ 17} While each of these cases involves misconduct comparable to that 
of respondent, the board observed that the aggravating and mitigating factors 
unique to each case resulted in a range of sanctions.  For example, in Abood, the 
attorney had failed to pay personal-income taxes for eight years and had deposited 
proceeds from a personal real estate transaction into his client trust account to 
avoid IRS collection.  Abood, 104 Ohio St.3d 655, 2004-Ohio-7015, 821 N.E.2d 
560, ¶ 6.  Abood’s default on his tax obligations lasted approximately twice as 
long as respondent’s and involved a significant IRS collection measures.  Id. at ¶ 
3-4, 19.  But like respondent, Abood fully cooperated in the disciplinary 
investigation and submitted favorable character references.  Id. at ¶ 9-10.  
Additional mitigating factors present in Abood — including the attorney’s lack of 
a prior disciplinary record, his efforts to self-report his conduct once he realized 
that he was the subject of an IRS investigation, his incredible remorse, and the 
imposition of criminal sanctions — justified the imposition of a one-year 
suspension with six-months conditionally stayed.  Id. at ¶ 9, 11, 19-20. 
{¶ 18} At the opposite end of the spectrum, Bruner had failed to remit 
$42,982.80 in taxes that he had withheld from his secretary’s wages over 10 years 
and had given her fraudulent W-2 forms each year in an effort to conceal his theft.  
Bruner, 98 Ohio St.3d 312, 2003-Ohio-736, 784 N.E.2d 687, at ¶ 3-4.  Although 
Bruner had filed the documents necessary to assess his tax liability at the time of 
his disciplinary hearing, he had not begun to make restitution, falsely attributed 
his misconduct to a lack of business acumen before conceding that he had 
January Term, 2011 
7 
 
defaulted on his tax obligations because his practice was not making enough 
money, and failed to appreciate the gravity of his misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 5-7.  
Therefore, we indefinitely suspended Bruner from the practice of law.  Id. at ¶ 8.  
Respondent’s conduct, however, is less egregious than Bruner’s because it lasted 
less than half as long, and respondent had made full restitution prior to the filing 
of relator’s complaint. 
{¶ 19} In Large, we imposed a one-year license suspension on an attorney 
who, for five years, had failed to file personal-income tax returns, had failed to 
withhold income taxes and Social Security contributions from his employees’ 
wages, and had failed to report his employees’ wages to the IRS.  Large, 122 
Ohio St.3d 35, 2009-Ohio-2022, 907 N.E.2d 1162, ¶ 4, 13, 15, 21.  Like the 
respondent in this case, Large established that he was a person of good character 
and reputation and fully cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings.  Id. at ¶ 17.  
He also had no prior disciplinary record and had served six months of probation in 
a community confinement center and six months of electronically monitored 
home confinement after pleading guilty to federal criminal charges arising from 
this misconduct.  Id. at ¶ 10, 17.  See BCGD Proc. Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (f).  
Large did not convert his employees’ withholdings because had not withheld 
taxes from their wages, but he had failed to make restitution, even after he had 
received a $72,000 fee, and he had acted with a selfish desire to delay the 
collection of his personal-income taxes.  Id. at ¶ 13, 17. 
{¶ 20} Having independently considered respondent’s four-year pattern of 
misconduct and balanced his good reputation in the legal community and payment 
of restitution against his prior disciplinary action, his mixed appreciation for the 
gravity of his misconduct, and his failure to inform his clients that he does not 
carry malpractice insurance, we agree that a one-year suspension is the 
appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 21} Accordingly, Stephen Robert Archer is suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for one year.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
John Donovan, for relator. 
______________________