Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Farrell

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Farrell, 119 Ohio St.3d 529, 2008-Ohio-4540.] 
 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. FARRELL. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Farrell, 
 119 Ohio St.3d 529, 2008-Ohio-4540.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with partial stay on 
conditions. 
(No. 2007-2395 — Submitted March 26, 2008 — Decided September 16, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-011. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, William I. Farrell of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0043635, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1989.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
suspend respondent’s license to practice for two years, staying the last year of the 
suspension on conditions, based on findings that he fabricated documents and also 
forged a signature to obtain a loan.  We agree that respondent violated the Code of 
Professional Responsibility as found by the board and that the recommended 
sanction is appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint charging 
respondent with violations of DR 1-102(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude) and 1-102(A)(4) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation).  A panel of three board members heard the case and 
considered the evidence, including the parties’ stipulations of fact and misconduct 
and joint proposal for a one-year suspension, stayed on the condition of 
respondent’s continued mental-health treatment.  The panel found the cited 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Disciplinary Rule violations, but recommended a two-year suspension with one 
year stayed on conditions, including continued mental-health treatment and 
probation.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and its 
recommendation. 
{¶ 3} Respondent has objected to the board’s recommendation, arguing 
that his ethical breaches do not warrant such a severe sanction.  He claims that 
whatever length of suspension is imposed, the sanction should be completely 
stayed in accordance with the proposed sanction of the parties, precedent, and the 
strength of the mitigating evidence.  On review, we overrule the objection, adopt 
the board’s findings of misconduct, and accept the recommendation for a two-
year suspension with one year stayed on the remedial conditions. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Since his admission to practice, respondent has worked in a small 
law firm, developing expertise in workers’ compensation and Social Security 
disability law.  In early 1997, respondent became a partner in the firm, which 
continued in practice as Finkelmeier and Farrell.  As of the panel hearing, 
respondent was still practicing with his firm. 
{¶ 5} Though content in his practice at Finkelmeier and Farrell, 
respondent and his wife realized that his income from the firm alone would not 
sustain their affluent lifestyle.  His wife, also a practicing lawyer, mentioned 
sometime during 2004 her desire to cut back her work schedule to spend more 
time with their young daughter, and she suggested that the family move to smaller 
quarters. Respondent promised instead to obtain more lucrative employment.  But 
rather than actually quit his law firm, respondent merely pretended to have found 
another job. 
{¶ 6} To that end, respondent fabricated a letter dated December 10, 
2004, purporting to be a job offer from the chief operating officer of Sheakley 
Uniservice, Inc.  The letter, written on what appeared to be the corporation’s 
January Term, 2008 
3 
letterhead, specified a job title of assistant general counsel, a $150,000 annual 
salary, an incentive-pay package, and various health insurance and other benefits.  
Respondent presented the fabricated letter to his wife to show that he had another 
job. 
{¶ 7} Respondent fabricated another letter, dated June 13, 2005, 
purporting to be a job offer from the director of risk management for the Kroger 
Company.  The letter specified a job title of assistant director of risk management, 
a $168,000 annual salary, an incentive-pay package, and various health-insurance 
and other benefits.  Respondent also presented this letter to his wife, and because 
of it, she resigned her position as a senior associate in a law firm, leaving a job 
that paid an annual salary of about $100,000. 
{¶ 8} Respondent had hoped to increase the income from his practice 
enough to sustain his family, but by March 2006, he needed money.  Respondent 
forged his wife’s signature on a power of attorney, intending to use the document 
to obtain a $50,000 increase in their line of credit.  Then, to secure the necessary 
notarization on the power of attorney, respondent lied about the authenticity of the 
forged signature to the attorney he asked to notarize it.  That lawyer notarized the 
false signature.1 
{¶ 9} With the forged power of attorney, respondent borrowed an 
additional $50,000 on a line of credit, secured by his family’s home, from Fifth 
Third Bank.  His wife later happened upon a bank statement and questioned him 
about the extension of credit.  To quell her suspicions, respondent fabricated three 
more letters, all dated May 5, 2006, and purporting to be written on Fifth Third 
letterhead. 
{¶ 10} The first letter purported to be from the bank’s executive vice-
president of retail banking operations; the second purported to be from the bank’s 
                                                 
1.  We publicly reprimanded the lawyer in Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Gottesman, 115 Ohio St.3d 
222, 2007-Ohio-4791, 874 N.E.2d 778. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
general counsel, executive vice-president, and corporate secretary; and the third 
purported to be from the bank’s president and chief executive.  Respondent 
addressed each letter to himself and his wife, and in each supposedly redressed 
some issue with one or another of the couple’s bank accounts.  The letters, all at 
least one page long, specified in great detail how the $75,000 credit limit had 
resulted from a “counterfeit” equity line of credit and how the discrepancies had 
been or were being remedied.  None of these elaborate explanations was true. 
{¶ 11} The bank letters temporarily allayed respondent’s wife’s concerns 
about the increase in their credit line.  To keep her in the dark, respondent next 
stopped mail delivery to their home.  His wife soon noticed that they were not 
getting mail, and respondent fabricated another letter, this one purporting to be 
from the United States Postal Service on post office letterhead.  With this letter, 
dated May 19, 2006, an assistant director of internal investigations supposedly 
assured the couple that their mail had not been held or diverted in the last year. 
{¶ 12} Respondent eventually revealed his duplicity to his wife, and in 
December 2006, the couple divorced.  Respondent’s divorce decree requires that 
respondent repay the $75,000 line of credit from his funds or from the sale of the 
former couple’s home.  As of the oral argument in this case, the debt remained 
outstanding. 
{¶ 13} At the urging of his wife’s attorney, respondent reported his 
fabrications and forgery to relator.  He has stipulated that he acted illegally in 
procuring a loan based on false information, see R.C. 2921.13(A)(8) (providing 
false information to obtain a loan is a misdemeanor of the first degree), and 
thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(3).  He also stipulated that he had acted deceitfully, 
in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).  We accept these stipulations and the board’s 
findings as to this misconduct. 
Sanction 
January Term, 2008 
5 
{¶ 14} “When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
the duties violated, the actual or potential injury caused, the attorney's mental 
state, and sanctions imposed in similar cases.”  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Norton, 
116 Ohio St.3d 226, 2007-Ohio-6038, 877 N.E.2d 964, ¶ 18.  Before making a 
final determination, we also weigh evidence of 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.”).  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Glatki (2000), 88 Ohio 
St.3d 381, 384, 726 N.E.2d 993; Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 
473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  Because each disciplinary case 
involves “unique facts and circumstances,” BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(A), we are not 
limited to the factors specified in the rule and may take into account “all relevant 
factors” in determining which sanction to impose.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
A.  Duties Violated, Injury, Mental State, and Case Law 
{¶ 15} With his illegal act in violation of DR 1-102(A)(3), respondent 
breached his duty to the public, the legal profession, and the judicial system to 
obey the law.  This breach “lessens public confidence in the legal profession 
because obedience to the law exemplifies respect for the law.”  Cleveland Bar 
Assn. v. Stein (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 77, 81, 58 O.O.2d 151, 278 N.E.2d 670.  
With his fabrications, respondent violated his duty to act with the integrity that a 
member of the legal profession must exhibit.  Indeed, when a lawyer tried to 
persuade an insurance company to settle by inventing portions of a nonexistent 
court transcript in which a tortfeasor supposedly admitted fault for an auto 
accident, we said: 
{¶ 16} “Lawyers who choose to engage in fabrication of evidence, deceit, 
misrepresentation of facts, and distortion of truth do so at their peril.  They are 
admonished that the practice of law is not a right, and our code of professional 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
responsibility demands far more of those in our profession.”  Cleveland Bar Assn. 
v. McMahon, 114 Ohio St.3d 331, 2007-Ohio-3673, 872 N.E.2d 261, ¶ 29. 
{¶ 17} Respondent’s misconduct also caused much harm.  Over a period 
of 18 months, respondent wove a web of deception, fictitiously composing in 
meticulous detail two letters about job offers from actual companies, a supposedly 
official letter assuring the recipients of proper mail service, and three letters about 
a bank’s efforts to remedy credit “fraud” that in fact respondent had perpetrated 
through a forged power of attorney.  By doing so, respondent not only deceived 
his spouse, he also played upon the trust of the attorney who falsely notarized the 
power of attorney, drawing that attorney into the disciplinary process.  
Respondent then used the forgery to dupe a bank into lending him $50,000, a loan 
that is now at risk for his inability to repay it. 
{¶ 18} As to his mental state, respondent admitted having intentionally 
forged his wife’s signature and fabricated the six letters in evidence.  He has no 
explanation for what he describes as his bizarre and uncharacteristic behavior, 
except to say that he had lied to avoid losing his wife and their daughter.  The 
parties do not dispute that respondent suffered from a depressive disorder during 
the months in which he committed his ethical breaches; however, respondent 
concedes that the depression did not contribute to cause his duplicity.  Absent this 
evidence, we can only conclude from the facts before us that respondent engaged 
in a “deliberate effort to deceive” others with his fabrications and forgery.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Agopian, 112 Ohio St.3d 103, 2006-Ohio-6510, 858 
N.E.2d 368, ¶ 13. 
{¶ 19} Respondent acknowledges our statement in Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Stubbs, 109 Ohio St.3d 446, 2006-Ohio-2818, 848 N.E.2d 843, ¶ 11, that 
“[i]llegal and dishonest conduct on the part of an attorney is always troubling and 
usually warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law.”  Yet as 
respondent observes, Stubbs is an exception to that rule.  There, we issued a six-
January Term, 2008 
7 
month stayed suspension to a lawyer who, after receiving a traffic citation, 
falsified a document to show the Bureau of Motor Vehicles that she had 
automobile insurance.  She also failed to appear for trial when charged with 
falsification and to pay fines after pleading guilty.  Id. at ¶ 4. 
{¶ 20} The lawyer in Stubbs engaged in but a single dishonest act in 
violation of DR 1-102(A)(4).  The misconduct in that case thus bears little 
resemblance to this situation, in which respondent has engaged in multiple acts of 
duplicity.  Moreover, with her lack of any prior disciplinary record, remorse, 
cooperation throughout the disciplinary process, and other mitigating attributes, 
including a depressive condition as defined by BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g) that 
did contribute to cause her misconduct, the lawyer in Stubbs convinced us that she 
would not commit a similar ethical infraction again.  In contrast, respondent 
cannot explain his fabrications and forgery, so we have nothing from which to 
conclude that he will not repeat his wrongdoing. 
{¶ 21} When a lawyer plans and administers “a multistep process to 
defraud” those entitled to rely on the validity of documents, the violation of DR 1-
102(A)(4) warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law.  Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Shaffer, 98 Ohio St.3d 342, 2003-Ohio-1008, 785 N.E.2d 429, ¶ 13.  A 
lawyer’s “[r]epeated or continuous attempts to mislead” fall into the same 
category.  Disciplinary Counsel v. DeLong, 98 Ohio St.3d 470, 2003-Ohio-1743, 
786 N.E.2d 1280, ¶ 8.  And contrary to respondent’s implication, a course of 
deceitful conduct is hardly made more tolerable because it did not victimize a 
client or occur in court.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. McMahon, 114 Ohio St.3d 331, 
2007-Ohio-3673, 872 N.E.2d 261, ¶ 23.  Thus, for respondent’s “continuing 
course of deceit and misrepresentation designed to cover up” wrongdoing, a 
period of actual suspension is appropriate.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh 
(1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 187, 190, 658 N.E.2d 237. 
B.  Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
{¶ 22} The mitigating effect of respondent’s having no prior disciplinary 
record, his cooperation during the disciplinary proceedings, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a) and (e), and the remorse he insists he has shown are not enough to 
warrant leniency.  Self-interest motivated respondent’s fabrications and forgery, 
he engaged in a pattern of misconduct and committed multiple offenses, and he 
has not made restitution by paying off the unauthorized extension of credit.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), (c), (d), and (i).  Moreover, respondent did not 
present evidence of his good character and reputation, a mitigating factor under 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e), nor did he prove that his mental disability 
contributed to cause his misconduct, documentation that BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(g) requires for mitigating effect. 
 
C.  Conclusion 
{¶ 23} Having found that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and (4), 
that an actual suspension is warranted for this misconduct, and that the balance of 
mitigating and aggravating factors does not weigh in his favor, we accept the 
sanction recommended by the board.  We hereby suspend respondent from the 
practice of law in Ohio for two years.  The second year of the suspension period 
will be stayed on the conditions that respondent (1) comply with the terms of the 
Ohio Lawyer’s Assistance Program (“OLAP”) he entered on February 26, 2007, 
(2) successfully complete a term of probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9), 
effective until the expiration of his OLAP contract, and (3) commit no further 
violations of the Disciplinary Rules.  If respondent violates the terms of the stay 
or probation, the stay will be lifted, and respondent shall serve the entire two-year 
suspension. 
{¶ 24} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2008 
9 
 
LANZINGER, J., concurs in judgment only. 
__________________ 
 
Ernest F. McAdams Jr. and Kevin P. Roberts, for relator. 
 
John J. Mueller, L.L.C., and John J. Mueller, for respondent. 
______________________