Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. McFaul

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. McFaul, 120 Ohio St.3d 293, 2008-Ohio-6145.] 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. MCFAUL. 
[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. McFaul, 
 120 Ohio St.3d 293, 2008-Ohio-6145.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to 
practice law—Two-year stayed suspension. 
(No. 2008-1203 — Submitted August 26, 2008 — Decided December 3, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-084. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Kevin T. McFaul of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0033568, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1986.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
suspend respondent’s license to practice for two years and stay the suspension on 
remedial conditions, based on findings that he (1) took liberties on sign-in sheets 
at a juvenile detention center to gain access for a client’s girlfriend and (2) was 
convicted of attempted drug possession after years of alcohol and cocaine 
addiction.  We find that respondent violated the Code of Professional 
Responsibility and agree that a two-year stayed suspension is appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, charged 
respondent with three counts of professional misconduct, later dismissing the 
allegations in Count II.  A panel of the board heard the case, making findings of 
misconduct and recommending the two-year suspension, stayed on conditions 
including monitored probation and drug screening.  The board accepted the 
panel’s findings and recommendation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} The parties have jointly waived objections and moved for our 
adoption of the board’s report. 
Misconduct 
 Count I 
{¶ 4} While representing Jose Reyes in September 2006, respondent 
allowed Reyes’s girlfriend, Whitney Matta, to pose as a legal assistant so that she 
could visit Reyes in the county juvenile detention center.  Although regulations 
limited visitors other than detainees’ legal representatives, respondent passed two 
checkpoints during restricted hours, signing in Matta first as his “legal assistant” 
and then as his “paralegal.”  Matta was not technically in respondent’s employ, 
although she had helped him with his investigation in Reyes’s case, and 
respondent had credited Reyes $250 for Matta’s services. 
{¶ 5} The parties stipulated and the board found that respondent’s 
misrepresentation violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that adversely 
reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  We accept this finding of 
misconduct.  The parties also stipulated that relator had dismissed a charged 
violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation).  The board mistakenly stated that the parties had 
stipulated to that misconduct and found a violation of that rule.  We reject that 
finding. 
 Count III 
{¶ 6} Respondent has been addicted to alcohol and crack cocaine for 
many years.  In November 2006, he was indicted on two counts of possession of 
drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11.  In May 2007, respondent pleaded guilty to a 
reduced charge of attempted drug possession, a first-degree misdemeanor.  
Respondent was sentenced to a jail term of six months, which the court 
suspended, and was placed on probation for five years. 
January Term, 2008 
3 
{¶ 7} Among the terms of respondent’s probation are the requirements 
that he perform 50 hours of community service, submit to random drug testing, 
successfully complete a substance-abuse treatment program, including a 
minimum of six months of inpatient treatment, and attend aftercare and outpatient 
treatment as necessary for his recovery.  Respondent was also fined $500 and 
ordered to pay a $200 supervision fee and court costs. 
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the board found that respondent’s 
conviction violated DR 1-102(A)(6).  We accept this finding of misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} A two-year suspension stayed on stringent conditions for his 
recovery from drug or alcohol dependence is a commensurate sanction for 
respondent’s misconduct.  When lawyers have successfully sought treatment for 
alcohol or substance abuse, either because of or in lieu of a drug-related 
conviction, we have similarly ordered two-year suspensions, stayed on remedial 
conditions, depending also on the weight of other mitigating and aggravating 
features of the case.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Wolf, 110 Ohio St.3d 411, 2006-
Ohio-4709, 853 N.E.2d 1169 (lawyer’s addiction to painkilling medication 
resulted in two felony convictions for procuring dangerous prescription drugs by 
deception), and Disciplinary Counsel v. May, 106 Ohio St.3d 385, 2005-Ohio-
5320, 835 N.E.2d 372 (lawyer's addiction to a painkilling prescription drug 
resulted in his being charged with two felonies for obtaining a dangerous drug by 
deception and his treatment in lieu of conviction). 
{¶ 10} We have considered respondent’s ethical breaches and the 
sanctions that have been ordered in similar cases and have weighed the relevant 
aggravating and mitigating factors, including those listed in Section 10(B)(1) and 
(2) 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, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  The parties stipulated to the extent of 
respondent’s recovery from his addictions, a mitigating factor under BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g)(i) through (iv) (requiring proof that a lawyer has been 
diagnosed with a chemical dependence by a qualified health-care professional, 
that the dependence contributed to cause the lawyer's misconduct, and that the 
lawyer has successfully completed an approved treatment program, and a 
prognosis by a qualified health-care provider that the lawyer will be able to return 
to competent, ethical practice). 
{¶ 11} Respondent has been diagnosed with chemical dependence on 
both alcohol and cocaine, and his addictions contributed to cause his misconduct.  
In October 2006, he entered an inpatient treatment facility for chemical 
dependence.  He was transferred in July 2007 to the Alternatives Agency, Inc., in 
compliance with the terms of his probation.  He later transferred to another 
treatment program in October 2007 and was released in January 2008.  
Respondent, who ceased practicing law for at least six months while in treatment, 
has successfully completed all these programs. 
{¶ 12} Respondent has been subject to random drug testing since his 
conviction and, as of the April 9, 2008 panel hearing, had never tested positive.  
On December 12, 2006, respondent entered into an Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”) recovery contract, with which he was also in compliance as of 
the panel hearing.  Respondent has experienced a sustained period of sobriety and 
treatment.  Medical prognosis supports that he is able to return to the competent, 
ethical, professional practice of law. 
{¶ 13} Respondent has no prior disciplinary record, did not act out of 
self-interest, and has cooperated in the disciplinary process.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), and (d).  Respondent has shown that with sobriety, he 
is considered of good character and reputation in the community.  See BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e).  Respondent has also acknowledged his wrongdoing, 
January Term, 2008 
5 
which included the failure in his solo practice to maintain a trust account and to 
advise clients that he lacked malpractice insurance as required by DR 1-104. 
{¶ 14} In agreeing on a two-year stayed suspension, the parties jointly 
proposed as conditions for the stay that respondent (1) complete a five-year 
monitored probation of his practice pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9) by an attorney 
appointed by relator, (2) complete any outpatient treatment as required by his 
treatment provider or by the court in his criminal case, (3) continue to comply 
with the terms of his OLAP contract during the entire five-year probation period, 
including submitting to random drug testing and with periodic OLAP updates to 
his monitoring attorney, (4) avoid a guilty or no-contest plea to, or conviction of, 
any drug- or alcohol-related offense, (5) open and maintain a trust account, and 
(6) either obtain professional-liability insurance in the amount of at least $100,000 
per occurrence and $300,000 in the aggregate or advise his clients that he lacks 
insurance in accordance with Prof. Cond.R. 1.4, the successor to DR 1-104. 
{¶ 15} We accept the recommendations of the board.  Respondent is 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years; however, the 
suspension is stayed on the listed conditions.  If respondent fails to comply with 
the conditions of the stay or probation, the stay will be lifted, and respondent will 
serve the entire two-year suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
McDonald Hopkins, L.L.C., R. Jeffrey Pollock, and Mathew M. Nee; and 
Heather M. Zirke, for relator. 
McGinty, Hilow & Spellacy Co., L.P.A., and Mary L. Cibella, for 
respondent. 
______________________