Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Meehan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Meehan, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3894.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-3894 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MEEHAN 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Meehan,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3894.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Practicing 
law 
in 
violation 
of 
jurisdictional 
regulations—Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of 
justice—Twenty-four-month suspension, stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2011-2045—Submitted January 18, 2012—Decided August 29, 2012.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-029. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Michael Patrick Meehan of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0059515, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1992.  
Relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint in March 2011, charging Meehan 
with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  After rejecting the 
parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, which recommended a 12-month stayed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
suspension, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
conducted a hearing to consider disciplinary counsel’s allegations of misconduct.  
At the conclusion of evidence, and upon consideration of the parties’ agreed 
stipulations, the panel determined that there was clear and convincing evidence 
that Meehan had committed violations of three Rules of Professional Conduct.  
The panel recommended that Meehan be suspended from the practice of law for 
24 months, with the entire suspension stayed on a number of stringent conditions.  
The board adopted the panel’s report. 
{¶ 2} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and 
we adopt the board’s recommendation that Meehan be suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for 24 months, with the entire suspension stayed on 
conditions. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Meehan owns and operates Evergreen Title Agency, Ltd., and his 
legal practice is largely limited to eviction actions.  This court administratively 
suspended Meehan from the practice of law, effective November 3, 2009, because 
he failed to renew his registration.  Meehan admitted that he had received the 
letter notifying him of the suspension; however, he did not open any of his mail at 
that time, including the suspension letter, because he was experiencing a major 
depressive episode.  Between November 2009 and May 2010, Meehan continued 
to practice law by filing eight eviction complaints in northern Ohio courts on 
behalf of his primary client, Midwest Properties, L.L.C., or its managing member.  
Neither the members of Midwest Properties nor the signatories on the deeds 
notarized by Meehan were aware of his suspension. 
{¶ 4} Meehan became aware of his suspension in May 2010, when he 
accessed his Ohio attorney-registration records to determine the extent of his 
continuing-legal-education (“CLE”) obligations.  Upon discovering that he was 
suspended, Meehan immediately took all necessary steps and had his license 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
reinstated on May 18, 2010.  During the short period of time between discovery 
and reinstatement, Meehan did not engage in any activities as an attorney. 
{¶ 5} The parties stipulated, and the board concluded, that Meehan’s 
conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in 
a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that 
jurisdiction) and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), and (h) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law). 
Sanction 
{¶ 6} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we weigh 
evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 
875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  In making a final determination, we consider a number of 
factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 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.  Because each disciplinary case is unique, 
we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take all relevant 
factors into account in determining what sanction to impose. BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B). 
{¶ 7} The board found as aggravating factors that Meehan had engaged 
in a pattern of misconduct and committed multiple violations of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d).  However, because 
all the offenses committed during the pattern of misconduct arose from a major 
depressive episode, the board accorded a lesser weight to the aggravating factors 
than to the mitigating factors. 
{¶ 8} The board found as mitigating factors that Meehan had no record 
of professional misconduct, that he lacked any selfish or dishonest motive, that he 
provided full and free disclosure during disciplinary counsel’s investigation, that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
he was cooperative during the disciplinary proceedings, and that he provided 
evidence of good character and reputation.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), 
and (e).  The board further found that Meehan was diagnosed with a mental 
disability (major depressive disorder) by a qualified healthcare professional, that 
he provided adequate proof that the disability contributed to his misconduct, that 
he has undergone a sustained successful period of treatment, and that he is 
capable of returning to competently and ethically practice law.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(g). 
{¶ 9} The board recommended that Meehan be suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for a period of 24 months, with all 24 months stayed on 
the condition that he (1) continue mental-health treatment and counseling 
throughout the 24-month period, (2) enter into an Ohio Lawyers Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”) contract and comply with all of its requirements during the 
period of the stayed suspension, (3) comply with all CLE requirements imposed 
by this court, (4) pay the cost of the present action, (5) not commit any further 
misconduct during the stayed suspension, and (6) submit to an additional two-year 
probationary period, monitored by disciplinary counsel, following the completion 
of the period of the stayed suspension.  We adopt the board’s recommendation. 
{¶ 10} In a classic instance of practicing law while under suspension, 
disbarment is appropriate.  See Akron Bar Assn. v. Thorpe, 40 Ohio St.3d 174, 
532 N.E.2d 752 (1988); Disciplinary Counsel v. McDonald, 71 Ohio St.3d 628, 
646 N.E.2d 819 (1995); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Shabazz, 74 Ohio St.3d 24, 656 
N.E.2d 325 (1995).  In Thorpe, the attorney was aware that he had been 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, but he engaged in settlement 
negotiations on behalf of a client in conscious disregard of the suspension.  
Thorpe at 174.  This court agreed with the board’s recommendation for permanent 
disbarment.  Id.  In McDonald, the attorney was publicly reprimanded for 
neglecting a legal matter and was later indefinitely suspended from the practice of 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
law for refusing to pay the court costs from the reprimand proceedings.  
McDonald at 628.  The attorney disregarded the suspension order, continued to 
practice law, was convicted of operating a vehicle while under the influence of 
alcohol or drugs, neglected client matters, and stole client funds.  This court 
rejected the recommended indefinite suspension and ordered permanent 
disbarment.  Id. at 629.  In Shabazz, the attorney had twice been suspended from 
the practice of law for multiple instances of misconduct.  Shabazz at 24.  The 
partial stay on the initial suspension was revoked when the attorney committed 
further misconduct, and he was suspended yet again after he committed additional 
misconduct.  Id. at 24-25.  The attorney practiced law in disregard of his 
suspension and used the name of another attorney without that attorney’s 
authority.  Id.  This court rejected the recommendation of an indefinite suspension 
and ordered permanent disbarment.  Id. at 25. 
{¶ 11} Although disbarment is generally necessary “where previous 
sanctions have been ignored with relative impunity,” McDonald at 629, lesser 
sanctions may also be appropriate depending on the circumstances of the 
attorney’s misconduct.  See Disciplinary Counsel v. Blackwell, 79 Ohio St.3d 395, 
683 N.E.2d 1074 (1997); Disciplinary Counsel v. Carson, 93 Ohio St.3d 137, 753 
N.E.2d 172 (2001).  We must keep in mind that “our primary purpose in imposing 
disciplinary sanctions is not to punish the offender but to protect the public.”  
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Scott, 129 Ohio St.3d 479, 2011-Ohio-4185, 953 N.E.2d 831, 
¶ 16. 
{¶ 12} In Blackwell, the attorney practiced for 15 months even though he 
had not completed his attorney registration for the biennium, failed to meet his 
CLE requirements for three reporting periods, and was suspended from the 
practice of law pending reinstatement after his third instance of failing to 
complete his CLE requirements.  Blackwell at 395.  The attorney failed to meet 
the requirements for reinstatement, failed to notify his clients of his suspension, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
and continued to practice law for approximately three months before filing for 
reinstatement.  Id.  This court rejected the recommended sanction of an indefinite 
suspension and held that a two-year suspension with the second year stayed was 
appropriate because of “the specific facts and circumstances of this case, and 
particularly * * * the board's recommendation and the fact that most of 
respondent's violations occurred during a period when he was achieving a 
successful recovery from alcoholism.”  Id. at 397. 
{¶ 13} In Carson, the attorney practiced for approximately seven years 
while under suspension for noncompliance with CLE requirements.  Carson at 
137.  The attorney had mistakenly believed that he could return to practice after 
paying various sanctions without reapplying for readmission.  Id. at 138.  This 
court agreed with the board’s recommended sanction of a two-year suspension 
with one year stayed, noting that the attorney’s noncompliance was inadvertent 
and was related to alcohol-dependence issues and that he had been working 
closely with OLAP to address those issues.  Id. 
{¶ 14} In the present case, Meehan’s misconduct is much more closely 
aligned with these latter cases than those cases in which permanent disbarment 
was warranted.  Given the unique circumstances surrounding Meehan’s conduct, 
including the evidence of his treatment for depression, his immediate cessation of 
practice upon learning of his suspension, his complete cooperation during 
disciplinary proceedings, and disciplinary counsel’s repeated recommendation for 
a fully stayed suspension, we conclude that a stayed suspension is warranted.  We 
therefore adopt the board’s recommendation. 
{¶ 15} Meehan is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 24 
months, with the entire suspension stayed, subject to the conditions requiring him 
to continue mental-health treatment and counseling throughout the 24-month 
period, enter into an OLAP contract and comply with all of its requirements 
during the stayed suspension, comply with all CLE requirements imposed by this 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
court, pay the cost of the present action, refrain from committing any further 
misconduct during the stayed suspension, and submit to an additional two-year 
probationary period, monitored by disciplinary counsel, following the completion 
of the period of the stayed suspension.  If Meehan fails to comply with these 
conditions, the stay will be lifted, and he will be required to serve the entire two-
year suspension.  Costs are taxed to Meehan. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Koblentz & Penrose, L.L.C., and Richard S. Koblentz, for respondent. 
______________________