Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. McShane

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. McShane, 121 Ohio St.3d 169, 2009-Ohio-746.] 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MCSHANE. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. McShane,  
121 Ohio St.3d 169, 2009-Ohio-746.] 
Attorneys – Misconduct – Failure to perform promised legal services – Failure to 
return unearned portion of fees – Failure to cooperate in disciplinary 
investigation – Two-year suspension, all stayed. 
(No. 2007-1918 — Submitted December 17, 2009 — Decided  
February 25, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-024. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Eugene F. McShane of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0017578, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1971.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
suspend respondent’s license to practice for two years, with the entire suspension 
stayed on remedial conditions, based on findings that he failed to provide 
promised legal services to two clients, return unearned portions of the clients’ 
fees, and respond during an investigation of this misconduct.  We agree that 
respondent violated the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility as found by the board and that the recommended sanction is 
appropriate. 
Procedural History 
{¶ 2} Relator charged respondent on April 16, 2007, with three counts of 
professional misconduct.  Respondent did not answer the complaint, and relator 
moved for default.  See Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master commissioner appointed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
by the board granted the motion.  Finding multiple violations of the Disciplinary 
Rules and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G), which requires lawyers to assist in investigations 
of misconduct, the master commissioner recommended respondent’s indefinite 
suspension from practice.  The board adopted the master commissioner’s findings 
of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
{¶ 3} We ordered respondent to show cause why we should not confirm 
the board’s recommendation.  In response, respondent filed a motion for remand 
to the board, objections to the board’s report, a motion to supplement the record, 
and a second motion for remand.  On March 21, 2008, we denied the motion to 
supplement but granted the motion to remand.  Because respondent proffered 
compelling evidence of a mental disability in explanation for his failure to answer 
as well as substantial evidence in mitigation of his misconduct, we returned the 
case to the board for further proceedings as to the appropriate sanction. 
{¶ 4} On remand, the parties stipulated to the master commissioner’s 
findings of misconduct, and a panel of the board heard respondent’s mitigation 
evidence.  Finding violations of the Disciplinary Rules and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) 
and weighing the other evidence, the panel recommended a two-year suspension 
from practice, all stayed.  The board adopted the panel’s findings and 
recommendation. 
Misconduct 
Count I – The Roholt Grievance 
{¶ 5} Philip C. Roholt retained respondent in September 2004 to pursue 
an antitrust claim on his behalf.  Pursuant to their agreement, Roholt paid 
respondent an initial fee of $5,000 for his services.  Respondent thereafter failed 
to maintain contact with Roholt, did no work on his case, and did not return any 
of the $5,000 fee as unearned. 
{¶ 6} We find the evidence to be clear and convincing that respondent’s 
acts and omissions in the Roholt case violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting a 
January Term, 2009 
3 
lawyer from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 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), 7-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
intentionally failing to seek a client’s lawful objectives), 7-101(A)(2) (prohibiting 
a lawyer from intentionally failing to carry out a contract of professional 
employment), and 7-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally causing a 
client prejudice or damage).  Because respondent stipulated to a violation of 
Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) relative to this count, we also find that misconduct. 
Count II – The Holowitz Grievance 
{¶ 7} In November 2005, Thomas G. Holowitz asked the Columbus Bar 
Association (“CBA”) to arbitrate his fee dispute with respondent.  Respondent did 
not participate in the arbitration, and in October 2006, a fee-arbitration committee 
determined that respondent had improperly withheld $1,350 in fees from 
Holowitz.  The committee directed respondent to return the money, but no 
evidence suggests that he ever did. 
{¶ 8} We find the evidence to be clear and convincing that respondent’s 
failure to repay Holowitz violated DR 1-102(A)(6) and 9-102(B)(4) (requiring a 
lawyer to promptly pay or deliver funds in the lawyer’s possession to which the 
client is entitled). 
Count III – Failure to Respond to an Investigation of Misconduct 
{¶ 9} In November 2006, CBA inquired several times about issues raised 
during the arbitration proceeding, including whether respondent had deposited 
into his client trust account a $500 refund that had been returned by a court.  
Respondent did not reply, and in January 2007, CBA asked relator to investigate.  
Relator sent respondent a certified letter of inquiry that month; however, 
respondent also did not reply to that letter. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 10} We find the evidence to be clear and convincing that respondent’s 
failure to reply to the letter of inquiry violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(6) 
and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G). 
Sanction 
{¶ 11} In recommending the two-year stayed suspension from practice as 
the appropriate sanction, the panel and board weighed the aggravating and 
mitigating factors listed in 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.”).  The panel and board found that 
the aggravating factors of lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process and 
failure to make restitution, which the master commissioner had previously found, 
had been offset by respondent’s new mitigation evidence.  Neither of the parties 
dispute the existence or weight of the cited mitigating factors, and we accept the 
panel and board findings in that regard. 
{¶ 12} Respondent practiced law for over 35 years without disciplinary 
incident before the current grievances and always enjoyed a reputation for good 
character and professional competence.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and 
(e).  Respondent has, since our remand, made restitution with interest to his 
clients and cooperated completely in the proceedings.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(c) and (d).  Moreover, respondent did not fail his clients because of 
dishonesty or self-interest.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b).  Rather, respondent 
established the mitigating effect of his mental disability under BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(g), which requires proof of (i) a diagnosis of mental disability by a 
qualified health-care professional, (ii) a determination that mental disability 
contributed to cause the misconduct, (iii) a sustained period of successful 
treatment, and (iv) a prognosis from a qualified health-care professional that the 
attorney will be able to return to competent, ethical professional practice under 
specified conditions. 
January Term, 2009 
5 
{¶ 13} As to his professional reputation, respondent’s distinguished career 
has included ten years in the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, serving as chief of 
both the Special Litigation and the Antitrust Sections, where he won high-profile 
cases and recovered millions for the state of Ohio.  Over the years, respondent 
developed many professional relationships with now prominent attorneys who 
strongly support him and his ability to continue in the practice of law.  Many of 
these attorneys, including some with whom he later practiced law for as long as 
20 years, testified or wrote letters extolling respondent’s integrity, legal skills, and 
professional achievements. 
{¶ 14} Respondent ended up practicing as a sole practitioner from 2001 
until May 2005, when he took a job with his present employer, Safe Auto 
Insurance Company (“Safe Auto”).  Respondent did not enjoy solo practice and 
eventually completed work in or referred all but the Roholt and Holowitz case 
files in anticipation of closing the practice.  Respondent identifies 2001 as the 
beginning of his depression. 
{¶ 15} In early March 2008, respondent entered into a five-year Ohio 
Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) contract and has since completed a 
physical examination, substance-abuse assessment, and a mental-health 
examination.  He is in compliance with his contract, currently in treatment with 
psychologist John A. Tarpey, Ph.D., and taking antidepressant medication. 
{¶ 16} Thomas Paulucci, J.D., Ph.D, a forensic psychologist, initially 
assessed respondent’s condition in January and March 2008.  Dr. Paulucci 
diagnosed respondent with dysthymia, a condition characterized by depression on 
a daily basis for at least six months.  He reported that respondent suffered from 
major depression, including suicidal tendencies, diminished cognitive function, 
and a “paralysis of will.”  Dr. Paulucci concluded that respondent’s major 
depression, low energy levels, and profound feelings of hopelessness and 
helplessness had rendered him unable to act in the Roholt and Holowitz cases. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 17} Dr. Paulucci reevaluated respondent in mid-July 2008.  He testified 
to respondent’s improved ability to focus and concentrate, but was somewhat 
guarded in his prognosis for respondent’s long-term recovery, as respondent was 
still in the early stages of treatment.  Dr. Paulucci anticipated that the resolution of 
the current proceedings would alleviate much of respondent’s debilitating stress 
and have a positive effect on his outlook.  In Dr. Paulucci’s opinion, respondent 
could practice law within ethical constraints for the foreseeable future, but only in 
a structured association with other lawyers and only as long as he continued his 
medication and therapy. 
{¶ 18} Brad Lander, Ph.D., LICDC, who examined respondent in June 
2007, made findings consistent with Dr. Paulucci’s conclusions.  He reported that 
respondent suffered from major depressive disorder, recurrent, in partial 
remission.  Dr. Lander also agreed that respondent was responding to treatment 
for depression. 
{¶ 19} Respondent’s immediate supervisor at Safe Auto testified on his 
behalf as well.  Kelly Phillips, also a lawyer, is in charge of the Special 
Investigations Unit, which is the litigation section of the Specialty Claims Unit 
that investigates severe-injury claims and fraudulent claims.  Phillips praised 
respondent’s performance highly, describing him as an excellent lawyer with a 
passion for the law, trustworthy, and utterly reliable.  Phillips said that the 
company might reorganize the department to include legal counsel, a position for 
which he would recommend respondent if respondent remains able to practice.  
Phillips added that the disciplinary proceedings, whatever the outcome, did not 
pose any threat to respondent’s current employment, which does not require a law 
license. 
{¶ 20} Finally, respondent has shown much remorse, apologizing for his 
failures to his clients and the legal profession.  Respondent has paid Holowitz and 
Roholt restitution with interest, though he had to ask friends for the money.  
January Term, 2009 
7 
Respondent’s financial situation is so dire that he is in the process of trying to 
prevent foreclosure of his home. 
{¶ 21} In view of the mitigating evidence, relator no longer advocates an 
indefinite suspension, and neither party has filed objections to the recommended 
two-year stayed suspension.  As conditions for the stay, the panel and board 
agreed on the following: that respondent (1) continue treatment with his 
psychologist and treating physician until released, (2) provide quarterly reports to 
relator from his mental-health professional or treating physician, (3) comply with 
his OLAP contract in all respects, and (4) practice only in association with other 
lawyers and under the auspices of a monitoring attorney to be appointed by 
relator.  We accept the panel and board recommendation. 
{¶ 22} We suspend respondent from the practice of law in the state of 
Ohio for a period of two years.  In accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9), the two-year 
suspension is stayed on the probationary conditions cited by the panel and board.  
If respondent violates the terms of the stay and probation, the stay will be lifted 
and respondent will serve the entire two-year suspension. 
{¶ 23} 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 Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
The Anelli Law Firm and Dianna M. Anelli, for respondent. 
______________________