Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Jacobs

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jacobs, 109 Ohio St.3d 252, 2006-Ohio-2292.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. JACOBS. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jacobs,  
109 Ohio St.3d 252, 2006-Ohio-2292.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Dual representation — Accepting or continuing 
representation when professional judgment likely to be compromised — 
Public reprimand. 
(No. 2005-2395 — Submitted January 25, 2006 — Decided May 24, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-055. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Frank David Jacobs of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0011310, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1959. 
{¶ 2} On August 11, 2005, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed an 
amended complaint charging respondent with professional misconduct.  A panel 
of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline considered the case 
on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, see Section 11 of the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”) and made 
findings of misconduct and a recommendation, which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent began representing Dr. Wassef E. Michael Mikhail 
and his wife Salma Mikhail in 1985.  The Mikhails separated in March 2001, and 
they divorced in June 2003.  After the Mikhails’ separation, respondent advised 
Dr. Mikhail on matters involving revisions to a revocable trust.  The revisions 
removed Mrs. Mikhail as successor trustee and ensured that she would not have 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
access to the principal of the trust on Dr. Mikhail’s death.  Respondent also 
advised Dr. Mikhail to transfer some of his assets to keep them from Mrs. 
Mikhail. 
{¶ 4} Despite his representation of Dr. Mikhail while the divorce was 
pending, respondent also advised Mrs. Mikhail on the drafting of a will.  As Mrs. 
Mikhail directed, the new will that respondent prepared for her eliminated Dr. 
Mikhail as executor and beneficiary of her estate.  Respondent did not provide full 
disclosure to Mrs. Mikhail of his representation of her husband and did not 
attempt to obtain her consent for the dual representation. 
{¶ 5} Respondent acknowledged and the board found that respondent 
had thereby violated DR 5-105(B) (prohibiting a lawyer from accepting or 
continuing to represent clients if the lawyer’s professional judgment on any 
client’s behalf is likely to be compromised by the representation). 
Sanction 
{¶ 6} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10.  
The board stated that there were no aggravating factors, but did identify several 
mitigating factors, including the absence of any prior disciplinary record, the 
absence of any dishonest or selfish motive on the part of respondent, his full 
disclosure and cooperative attitude during the disciplinary process, and the 
absence of any financial harm to Mrs. Mikhail.  The board further noted that 
respondent had submitted written statements from 16 judges, clients, and other 
attorneys about his good character and reputation.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), 
(b), (d), and (e). 
{¶ 7} The 
parties 
recommended 
that 
respondent 
be 
publicly 
reprimanded.  The panel and the board agreed with this recommendation. 
{¶ 8} We agree that respondent has committed the misconduct described 
above, and we agree that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction.  “[A] 
January Term, 2006 
3 
lawyer’s duty to provide undivided loyalty to a client is paramount.”  Columbus 
Bar Assn. v. Ross, 107 Ohio St.3d 354, 2006-Ohio-5, 839 N.E.2d 918, ¶ 29.  
Lawyers must avoid all actual and potential conflicts of interest so as not to dilute 
their independent loyalty to each client.  Respondent’s misstep in this regard is 
allayed, however, by his many years of unblemished legal practice, as well as the 
other mitigating factors cited by the board.  All of the letters presented to the 
board on his behalf speak to respondent’s integrity, competence, and 
professionalism, and we trust that a public reprimand is sufficient to ensure that 
this misconduct will not recur. 
{¶ 9} Accordingly, respondent is publicly reprimanded.  Costs are taxed 
to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissenting. 
{¶ 10} I would suspend respondent for six months and stay the suspension 
on the condition that he commit no further misconduct during that term. 
 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting 
opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Brian E. Shinn, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
James D. Caruso, for respondent. 
______________________