Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Parrish

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Parrish, 121 Ohio St.3d 610, 2009-Ohio-1969.] 
 
 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. PARRISH. 
[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Parrish, 
 121 Ohio St.3d 610, 2009-Ohio-1969.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules, 
including engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude — 
Disbarment. 
(No. 2008-2469 — Submitted February 18, 2009 — Decided May 5, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-096. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Justin Peter Parrish of Rocky River, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0064246, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1994.  In 
July 2007, respondent was convicted of felony theft, and his license to practice 
law has been under suspension since October 23, 2007, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(5)(A)(4).  See In re Parrish, 115 Ohio St.3d 1434, 2007-Ohio-5636, 875 
N.E.2d 97. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, charged 
respondent with numerous violations of the Disciplinary Rules in a 12-count 
amended complaint.  A panel appointed by the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline heard the case, including the parties’ extensive 
stipulations and respondent’s testimony, made findings of misconduct, and 
recommended respondent’s permanent disbarment.  The board accepted the 
panel’s findings and recommendation.  Respondent has not objected to the 
board’s report and recommendation.  We accept the recommendation of 
permanent disbarment. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} The amended complaint comprised 12 counts pertaining to 
respondent’s conduct in two matters: (1) the Father Vincent O’Dea trust and (2) 
the John and Debra Sabo litigation. 
The Father Vincent O’Dea Trust 
{¶ 4} In May 2002, Father Vincent O’Dea hired respondent to represent 
him in trust and estate matters.  Father O’Dea had already established an inter 
vivos trust to provide funds for certain charitable organizations, and he directed 
respondent to prepare a power of attorney naming Father James Ragnoni as Father 
O’Dea’s agent.  Following Father O’Dea’s death in September 2002, Father 
Ragnoni, acting as trustee, retained respondent as attorney for the estate and the 
trust.  At the time of Father O’Dea’s death, the trust contained over $1.3 million. 
{¶ 5} On March 5, 2004, Father Ragnoni signed a “Letter of Authority,” 
prepared by respondent, authorizing the establishment of “a trust account in the 
name of ‘The Father Vincent O’Dea Trust Account’ * * * list[ing] as signatories 
[Father Ragnoni] and attorney Parrish.”  Listing himself as trustee, respondent 
then opened a new account (titled “Father Vincent O’Dea Trust”) into which the 
existing trust funds were transferred. 
{¶ 6} On March 9, 2004, less than one week after receiving signatory 
authority on the trust account, respondent wrote himself a check for $6,000.  This 
was the first of 15 checks on the account that were signed by and made payable to 
“J. Peter Parrish,” eventually totaling $96,685.  Respondent also electronically 
transferred $50,000 from the Father Vincent O’Dea Trust to his business account 
in November 2004 and $25,436.85 from the trust to his own attorney trust account 
in August 2005.  Eventually, respondent withdrew more than $172,000, not to pay 
for legal fees or other work for the trust, but—as he explained—“to maintain [the] 
illusion” that he “was still a successful sole practitioner.” 
January Term, 2009 
3 
{¶ 7} On January 29, 2006, unaware of the misappropriation, Father 
Ragnoni discharged respondent as trust counsel, replaced him with Joyce 
Salisbury, and requested return of the file.  Respondent, however, did not return 
the file.  Throughout the next month and a half, attorney Salisbury repeatedly 
asked respondent to return the trust-fund file, to no avail.  On March 9, 2006, 
Salisbury filed a complaint for concealment in probate court.  In response, 
respondent informed Salisbury that he would deliver the file on March 13; 
Salisbury explained that if he did not, she would file a grievance with relator.  
Respondent did not return the file on March 13, and Salisbury filed a grievance on 
March 15.  Salisbury eventually determined that at least $172,000 had been 
misappropriated from the trust. 
{¶ 8} On July 31, 2007, respondent pleaded guilty to third-degree felony 
theft, was sentenced to a four-year suspended sentence with a 20-day jail term and 
was ordered to pay $250,000 in restitution. 
{¶ 9} During his representation of Father O’Dea and the trust, 
respondent did not carry professional-liability insurance.  He informed neither 
Father O’Dea nor Father Ragnoni of this fact. 
The John and Debra Sabo Litigation 
{¶ 10} In October 2000, John and Debra Sabo hired respondent to defend 
them in a dispute with a contractor.  In May 2001, the contractor filed to foreclose 
under a mechanic’s lien on the Sabos’ property, and respondent filed an answer 
and counterclaim. 
{¶ 11} As the representation continued, however, respondent neglected 
the Sabos’ case in at least three situations.  First, respondent did not respond to 
the contractor’s motion for summary judgment, and default judgment was entered 
on the validity of the lien.  Second, after a motion to compel discovery was 
granted and the Sabos timely provided discovery responses to respondent, 
respondent did not provide them to opposing counsel.  Finally, after receiving at 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
least five continuances from May 2005 to April 2006, respondent failed to appear 
for a June 2006 pretrial conference, and his absence resulted in dismissal of his 
clients’ counterclaim for failure to prosecute.  Respondent did not inform the 
Sabos of his failure to appear or of the dismissal of their counterclaim.  In August 
2006, the Sabos discharged respondent and retained new counsel, who filed a 
motion for relief from judgment or reconsideration.  The motion was denied. 
{¶ 12} During his representation of the Sabos, respondent did not carry 
professional-liability insurance.  He did not inform the Sabos of this fact. 
{¶ 13} Based on the parties’ stipulations and respondent’s testimony at the 
hearing, the board found clear and convincing evidence that respondent had 
violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not engage in illegal conduct involving 
moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not 
engage in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 
1-104(A) (a lawyer shall inform a client if the lawyer does not maintain 
professional liability insurance), 2-106(A) (a lawyer shall not charge an illegal or 
clearly excessive fee), 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter 
entrusted to him), 7-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not intentionally prejudice or 
damage his client), and 9-102(B)(4) (a lawyer shall promptly pay or deliver funds 
or property to the client).  We accept these findings of misconduct. 
Recommended Sanction 
{¶ 14} In determining the recommended sanction for respondent’s 
misconduct, the panel and board reviewed the aggravating and mitigating features 
of respondent’s case.  See 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.”). 
{¶ 15} Adopting the panel report and recommendation, the board found 
four of the nine aggravating factors set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1).  The 
January Term, 2009 
5 
board found that respondent had acted with a dishonest or selfish motive in 
misappropriating over $172,000 from the O’Dea trust and that he had 
misappropriated funds repeatedly over a 22-month period.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(b), (c), and (d).  The board also found that the victims of the misconduct 
were vulnerable and had been harmed by respondent’s misconduct.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h). 
{¶ 16} The board found two factors in mitigation: absence of a prior 
disciplinary record and a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  The board rejected respondent’s 
contention that he had acted under a mental disability, see BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(g), and this finding has not been challenged here. 
{¶ 17} Relator advocated respondent’s disbarment.  Concluding that “the 
harm Respondent caused greatly outweighs the mitigation he presented,” the 
board adopted the recommendation to disbar. 
Review 
{¶ 18} We accept the findings of the board and adopt its recommendation 
to disbar respondent.  To maintain the illusion that he had a successful legal 
practice, respondent misappropriated over $172,000, money that his client had 
intended to serve charitable purposes.  The thefts began less than a week after 
securing signatory authority on the trust and continued for almost two years.  
Respondent harmed other clients through his continued neglect of their case, 
leading to the entry of a default judgment on an important issue, as well as the 
dismissal of their counterclaim.  In neither case did respondent maintain 
professional-liability insurance or inform his clients that he did not.  The 
presumptive disciplinary measure for respondent’s conduct is disbarment, and this 
sanction is appropriate here.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones, 112 Ohio 
St.3d 46, 2006-Ohio-6367, 857 N.E.2d 1221, ¶ 22; Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Wherry (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 584, 587, 722 N.E.2d 515. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 19} Respondent is therefore permanently disbarred from the practice of 
law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jones Day, John Q. Lewis, and William Warren, for relator. 
James Sammon, for respondent. 
______________________