Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Allison

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Allison, 90 Ohio St.3d 296, 2000-Ohio-76.] 
 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ALLISON. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Allison (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 296.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension with second year of 
suspension stayed on condition — Engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice — Engaging in conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Charging an illegal or 
clearly excessive fee — Failure to promptly pay or deliver client’s funds. 
(No. 00-782 — Submitted July 6, 2000 — Decided November 8, 2000.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-32. 
 
On June 7, 1999, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging respondent, Paul Wesley Allison of Fostoria, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0009604, with violating a number of Disciplinary Rules while 
representing a decedent’s estate in Seneca County.  Respondent failed to answer 
the complaint, and relator filed a motion for default, which was referred to Master 
Commissioner Harry W. White. 
 
Based on the complaint and a deposition of the respondent, the master 
commissioner found that the complaint centered on respondent’s representation of 
the estate of Lee W. Munro, who died December 11, 1996. After the decedent’s 
sister disclaimed any right to inherit, her son and a Charles E. Hohman, 
decedent’s nephew, became the sole heirs of the estate.  The probate court 
appointed Mr. Hohman commissioner and fiduciary of the estate, while 
respondent served as attorney for the estate. 
 
The master commissioner further found that after Hohman established a 
checking account for the estate on which only he had signature authority, 
 
 
2 
respondent persuaded Hohman to provide him with estate account checks that 
Hohman signed, but otherwise left blank.  In January 1997, Hohman issued a 
check to the respondent in the amount of $1,000 for legal fees for work on the 
estate.  In addition, he issued four estate-account checks payable to the respondent 
in the amounts of $500, $1,000, $2,000, and $2,500, for a total amount of $6,000.  
Hohman signed at least two of those checks in blank. 
 
In a report of distributions from the estate filed with the Seneca County 
Probate Court, respondent indicated that he had received only $1,000 as attorney 
fees for work on the estate.  In the report, respondent did not include any 
reference to three of four checks made  payable to him and listed the $2,500 check 
as a payment to the heir.  The probate court approved the report as filed but did 
not approve legal fees in excess of $1,000.  In December 1997, respondent agreed 
to repay the $6,000 in excess of the $1,000 fee approved by the probate court, but 
by January 28, 2000, respondent had not repaid any portion of the $6,000 sum. 
 
The master commissioner concluded that respondent’s misconduct 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation), DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to 
the administration of justice), DR 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct adversely 
reflecting on fitness to practice law), DR 2-106(A) (charging an illegal or clearly 
excessive fee), and DR 9-102(B)(4) (failure to promptly pay or deliver client’s 
funds). 
 
The master commissioner recommended that the respondent be suspended 
from the practice of law for a period of two years with one year stayed upon the 
condition that the $6,000 be repaid. 
 
The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
master commissioner, with the added provision that the one-year stay be 
conditioned upon repayment being made during the first year of the two-year 
suspension. 
 
 
3 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, John K. McManus and Stacy 
Solochek Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for a 
period of two years, with the second year of the suspension stayed upon 
repayment of the sum of $6,000 within the first year of the suspension.  Failure to 
repay the full amount within one year will result in the reinstatement of 
respondent’s stayed suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.