Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Herman

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Herman, 99 Ohio St.3d ___, 2003-Ohio-3932.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HERMAN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Herman, 99 Ohio St.3d 362, 2003-Ohio-3932.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with six months of 
suspension stayed on condition that no further violations of the 
Disciplinary Rules are committed — Conviction of attempted tampering 
with documents. 
(No. 2003-0725 — Submitted June 4, 2003 — Decided August 6, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-18. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On March 24, 1998, the Auglaize County Court of Common Pleas, 
Domestic Relations Division, ordered an attorney to draft qualified domestic 
relations orders (“QDROs”)1 consistent with the terms discussed by the parties at 
a hearing.  The attorney prepared the documents, and he and his client reviewed 
and signed the QDROs in May 1998.  The QDROs were then forwarded to 
respondent, John Herman of Wapakoneta, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
0003056, who was the attorney for the ex-wife of the other attorney’s client.  The 
ex-husband’s attorney instructed respondent to review the documents with the ex-
wife, sign and file them with the domestic relations court, and forward copies to 
the plan administrators. 
                                                 
1. 
A QDRO is a “domestic relations order which creates or recognizes the right or rights of 
a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent to receive all or a portion of the benefits 
payable from a private pension plan for the provision of or payment of child support, spousal 
support, or marital property rights due from the private pension plan participant.”  See, generally, I 
Sowald & Morganstern,  Domestic Relations Law (2002) 408, Section 9:20; see, also, Gordon v. 
Gordon (2001), 144 Ohio App.3d 21, 759 N.E.2d 431. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶2} 
One of the QDROs prepared by the ex-husband’s attorney 
provided that the ex-wife was entitled to $5,113 of a 401(k) account.  Without 
informing opposing counsel, respondent changed his client’s entitlement in the 
QDRO from $5,113 to $10,111.64.  Respondent then replaced the original 
signature page of the QDRO with a new signature page on which he signed the 
names of opposing counsel and the ex-husband without the knowledge or consent 
of either. 
{¶3} 
In May 1998, opposing counsel sent respondent a QDRO 
concerning the ex-husband’s pension benefits that provided a 45 percent share to 
respondent’s client. Respondent altered this QDRO to change his client’s share 
from 45 percent to 50 percent, again without informing either opposing counsel or 
the ex-husband. 
{¶4} 
In July 1999, one of respondent’s employees filed the falsified 
QDROs with the domestic relations court and forwarded them to the fund 
administrators.  Respondent said that he had not intended these documents to be 
filed.  When opposing counsel and the ex-husband discovered that the QDROs 
had been altered and filed, they contacted the Auglaize County Sheriff’s Office to 
report respondent’s suspected criminal conduct.  Respondent admitted to a deputy 
sheriff that he had altered the QDROs and forged at least one of the signatures. 
{¶5} 
A grand jury subsequently indicted respondent on felony and 
misdemeanor counts of perjury, forgery, and falsification.  In April 2001, 
respondent entered a plea of no contest to attempted tampering with documents, a 
misdemeanor of the second degree, in exchange for a dismissal of the felony 
charges.  On September 17, 2001, the Auglaize County Court of Common Pleas 
sentenced respondent to two years of community control and 300 hours of 
community service for his misdemeanor conviction.  Respondent did not 
apologize or otherwise communicate with his client after the discovery of the 
falsified QDROs. 
January Term, 2003 
3 
{¶6} 
On April 8, 2002, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging respondent with violating several Disciplinary Rules.  A panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
conducted a hearing, heard testimony, and received agreed stipulations and 
exhibits.  The panel found the facts as stipulated and concluded that respondent’s 
conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct involving moral 
turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice), 7-102(A)(5) (knowingly making a false statement of 
law or fact), and 7-102(A)(6) (knowingly participating in the creation or 
preservation of false evidence). 
{¶7} 
In mitigation, the panel found that respondent had not been the 
subject of any previous disciplinary findings or sanctions and that he had received 
no direct financial benefit from his misconduct.  After respondent discovered that 
the falsified QDROs had been filed with the court, respondent cooperated with 
opposing counsel in having the orders set aside, compensated opposing counsel 
for the time he spent to do so, and cooperated with the criminal investigation and 
his prosecution.  Respondent subsequently successfully completed his probation 
and fully cooperated in this disciplinary proceeding.  The panel further noted that 
numerous letters attested to respondent’s exemplary character and reputation.  
Relator recommended that respondent receive a one-year suspension from the 
practice of law in Ohio with six months stayed, and respondent recommended that 
he receive a public reprimand or a stayed suspension.  The panel recommended a 
one-year suspension with the entire suspension stayed.  The board adopted the 
findings of fact and conclusions of law of the panel but recommended that 
respondent be suspended for one year with six months of the suspension stayed 
“given his express fraudulent actions as an officer of the court and his intent to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
deceive his client.”  The board further recommended that the costs of the 
proceeding be taxed to respondent. 
{¶8} 
We adopt the sanction recommended by the board and relator.  
“An actual suspension from the practice of law is the general sanction for an 
attorney that engages in a course of conduct that violates DR 1-102(A)(4).”  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Brumbaugh, 99 Ohio St.3d 65, 2003-Ohio-2470, 788 
N.E.2d 1076, ¶ 13. 
{¶9} 
Nevertheless, where, as here, substantial mitigating factors exist, a 
partial stay of a suspension is an appropriate sanction.  Cf. Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Kafantaris, 99 Ohio St.3d 94, 2003-Ohio-2477, 789 N.E.2d 192 (12-month 
suspension with six months stayed warranted for attorney whose misconduct 
included violations of DR 1-102[A][4] and [5] when attorney fully cooperated 
with disciplinary investigation and various people attested to his honesty, 
character, and reputation); Disciplinary Counsel v. LaCour (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 
154, 743 N.E.2d 395 (partially stayed suspension imposed on attorney whose 
misconduct included violations of DR 1-102[A][4] and [5] where mitigating 
evidence included lack of prior disciplinary record and contributions to 
community during a long legal career).  Respondent lacked any prior disciplinary 
record, made efforts to rectify the consequences of his misconduct, fully 
cooperated with authorities in his criminal and disciplinary proceedings, and had a 
reputation in the legal community for exemplary character and professionalism 
during his lengthy legal career.  See Sections 10(B)(2)(a), (c), (d), and (e) of the 
Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before 
the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. 
{¶10} Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for one year, with six months of the suspension stayed on the 
condition that he commit no further violations of the Disciplinary Rules.  Costs 
are taxed to respondent. 
January Term, 2003 
5 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and O’DONNELL, 
JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and O’CONNOR, J., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissenting. 
{¶11} Due to the severity of Herman’s actions, I would suspend 
respondent from the practice of law for one year and stay no portion of the 
sanction. 
{¶12} The record is clear that Herman acted in a blatantly duplicitous 
manner when he changed the amounts on two different QDROs without 
informing either his client or opposing counsel.  Herman was subsequently 
convicted of a second-degree misdemeanor for attempted tampering with 
documents.  As the majority observes, Herman offered no apology for his actions.  
It is also undisputed that following his conviction, the board found that Herman 
had violated five Disciplinary Rules. 
{¶13} The panel found certain mitigating factors, which led to the 
majority’s staying six months of Herman’s one-year suspension.  Such factors, 
however, are not strong enough to mitigate Herman’s damaging acts.  For these 
reasons, I would suspend Herman from the practice of law for one year with no 
portion stayed. 
 
O’CONNOR, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Kevin L. Williams, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Elsass, Wallace, Evans, Schnelle & Co., L.P.A., and Richard Wallace, for 
respondent. 
__________________