Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Horton

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. Horton, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-579.] 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-579 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HORTON. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Horton,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-579.] 
Attorney misconduct, including neglecting an entrusted legal matter, failing to 
promptly pay funds a client is entitled to receive, and engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, and deceit — Two-year suspension, with 
second year stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2009-1501 ⎯ Submitted October 20, 2009 ⎯ Decided February 24, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-020. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Debbie Kay Horton of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0033622, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1986. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommends that we suspend respondent’s license to practice for two years and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
stay the second year on conditions, including monitored probation, training in 
law-office management, stress-management counseling, and repayment of the 
legal fees she charged her clients.  The recommendation is based on the board’s 
findings that respondent settled a couple’s personal-injury claims and endorsed 
settlement checks without their authority and then converted the settlement 
proceeds to her own use.  We accept the findings that respondent committed this 
professional misconduct and also accept the recommended sanction of a two-year 
suspension from practice with the last year stayed on remedial conditions. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with multiple 
violations of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A 
panel of three board members heard the case, including the parties’ 
comprehensive stipulations, and then made findings of fact and conclusions of 
law and recommended the two-year suspension with a conditional stay of the last 
year.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and recommendation, 
but added as a condition that respondent repay a $1,300 legal fee to her clients. 
{¶ 4} The parties have not objected to the board report. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 5} A couple retained respondent in February 2005 to recover for 
injuries they and their daughter sustained in an automobile accident.  The couple 
agreed to pay respondent a one-third contingent fee, and respondent explained to 
them that the recovery would probably be less than $5,000 because of the 
relatively minor injuries involved.  The couple did not, however, authorize 
respondent to resolve the dispute by entering into a final settlement agreement. 
{¶ 6} Respondent nevertheless negotiated a settlement on behalf of her 
clients.  In the summer of 2005, she accepted a $3,800 settlement offer without 
notifying her clients or obtaining their consent to the agreement.  She then forged 
her clients’ signatures on three separate settlement checks, cashed the checks, and 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
converted the settlement proceeds to her own use.  Respondent consequently did 
not provide the releases that she had promised to the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier. 
{¶ 7} Respondent’s clients contacted her in October 2006 to inquire 
about the status of the case.  Respondent falsely represented that she had filed suit 
in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court and that a trial was scheduled for 
early 2007.  The couple later authorized another lawyer to investigate 
respondent’s progress in the case, and that lawyer discovered respondent’s 
misrepresentation and conversion. 
{¶ 8} After the discovery of her wrongdoing, respondent, who did not 
continuously maintain a client trust account, sent her clients a cashier’s check for 
$2,500.  Respondent retained $1,300 of the settlement proceeds for fees. 
{¶ 9} Having compromised her clients’ interests by settling their claims 
without consent, forging their signatures on the settlement checks, and then 
stealing the money, respondent admitted violations of the following Disciplinary 
Rules: DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer 
from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted 
legal matter), 9-102(A) (requiring a lawyer to deposit client funds in an 
identifiable bank account containing no funds belonging to the lawyer), and 9-
102(B)(4) (requiring a lawyer to promptly pay funds a client is entitled to 
receive).  The board accepted these admissions and also found respondent in 
violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 
is  prejudicial to the administration of justice) and 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from intentionally failing to carry out a contract for professional 
employment).  We find the evidence of these violations clear and convincing and 
confirm that respondent committed this misconduct. 
Sanction 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 10} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
board considered sanctions imposed in similar cases and weighed the aggravating 
and mitigating factors of her case. 
{¶ 11} The board found guidance in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Mishler, 118 
Ohio St.3d 109, 2008-Ohio-1810, 886 N.E.2d 818, summarizing: 
{¶ 12} “In Mishler, an attorney was suspended for two years, with the 
second year stayed, upon conditions, for settling a case without authority, forging 
the client’s signature, lying to the client about the case, not returning client funds 
for a period of time, a failure to account for client funds, and charging excessive 
fees.  As herein, * * * there was significant mitigating evidence.” 
{¶ 13} In finding “significant” evidence weighing in favor of leniency, the 
board cited respondent’s personal tribulations during the underlying events.  
Serious illnesses in her family, caretaking demands that prevented her from 
sustaining her formerly busy practice, and her husband’s job loss caused her to 
lose her home and file for bankruptcy.  These difficulties, while no excuse for 
respondent’s transgressions, offered some insight into the pressures she was 
enduring at the same time.  Other mitigating factors were that respondent, who 
did not start practicing law until 1991, had no prior incidence of discipline, 
cooperated during the disciplinary process, and had made partial restitution to her 
clients.  See Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”) 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (d).  Respondent also presented 
witness testimony as to her character and reputation apart from the improprieties 
that led to the instant complaint.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e).  Finally, 
respondent acknowledged the gravity of her ethical breaches and sought 
counseling from the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) for stress 
management.  Thus, though respondent deceived her clients and kept their 
settlement money until they discovered the deceit, the board followed Mishler and 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
recommended a two-year suspension with one year stayed on conditions aimed at 
assisting in respondent’s rehabilitation. 
{¶ 14} We 
accept 
the 
board’s 
findings 
of 
misconduct 
and 
recommendation.  Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for two years; however, the second year of the suspension is stayed, 
providing that respondent (1) complete the three-year treatment regimen in 
accordance with OLAP recommendations, (2) complete 12 hours of continuing-
legal-education training in law-office, caseload, and time management, in addition 
to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, (3) complete one year of monitored 
probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9) under the auspices of a lawyer appointed 
by relator, and (4) repay her clients the $1,300 she charged in fees.  If respondent 
fails to comply with the terms of the stay and probation, the stay will be lifted, 
and respondent will serve the entire two-year suspension. 
{¶ 15} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol A. Costa, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Murman & Associates, Michael E. Murman, and Raymond S. Gruss, for 
respondent. 
______________________