[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Muntean, 127 Ohio St.3d 427, 2010-Ohio-6133.] 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MUNTEAN. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Muntean, 

127 Ohio St.3d 427, 2010-Ohio-6133.] 

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s 

honesty or trustworthiness — Conduct adversely reflecting on the lawyer’s 

fitness to practice law — Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 

misrepresentation — Indefinite suspension. 

(No. 2010-1463 — Submitted September 28, 2010 — Decided 

December 20, 2010.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-094. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Christopher Peter Muntean of Akron, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0077343, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2004. In 

May 2009, respondent met with law-enforcement officials who were investigating 

the disappearance of money from bank accounts that respondent maintained as 

treasurer of the Summit County Court Appointed Special Advocates (“CASA”) 

board. On the same day, respondent wrote to relator, Disciplinary Counsel, to 

report an ethical violation in regard to that matter. 

{¶ 2} In October 2009, respondent pleaded guilty to grand theft, a fourthdegree felony. As a result of the conviction, relator initiated a disciplinary 

complaint, and we imposed an interim felony suspension from the practice of law 

on respondent effective January 8, 2010. 124 Ohio St.3d 1422, 2010-Ohio-20, 

919 N.E.2d 746. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

{¶ 3} In June 2010, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 

Grievances and Discipline considered the cause. In addition to the extensive 

stipulations by the parties, the panel also considered testimony from respondent. 

The panel submitted its findings to the board, which issued a report containing 

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended sanction. 

{¶ 4} The board found that respondent had violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) 

(a lawyer shall not commit any illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s 

honesty or trustworthiness), 8.4(c) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct 

involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(h) (a lawyer 

shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 

practice law). The board recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended 

from the practice of law in Ohio, with the suspension to begin on January 8, 2010, 

the date respondent’s interim felony suspension became effective. Upon review, 

we adopt the board’s report in its entirety. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 5} The stipulated facts state that respondent became treasurer of the 

CASA board in January 2008. As treasurer, only respondent could sign CASA 

checks and use the CASA board’s debit card. In September 2008, respondent 

began using CASA funds for his personal expenses, and within a few months, he 

had converted nearly $50,000 for his own use. Respondent tried to hide his 

activities from fellow board members by ignoring their repeated requests for 

CASA’s financial records. When those records were obtained by other means, 

respondent’s theft was discovered. A Summit County grand jury indicted him on 

one count of grand theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(2) and (3). Respondent 

pleaded guilty to that charge and was sentenced to six months’ incarceration, 

which was suspended on several conditions, including making full restitution to 

CASA. 
January Term, 2010 

3

{¶ 6} The parties stipulated that respondent’s conduct violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), (c), and (h). The parties also stipulated to three aggravating 

and three mitigating factors enumerated in Section 10(B) of the Rules and 

Regulations Governing Procedures on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 

of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). The board 

found as aggravating factors a selfish or dishonest motive, a pattern of 

misconduct, and the presence of multiple offenses. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b), 

(c), and (d). In mitigation, the board found that respondent had made full 

restitution to CASA. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c). The board also found that 

respondent had no prior disciplinary record and had cooperated with the 

disciplinary process. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d). 

{¶ 7} At the hearing, respondent confirmed that he had declared 

bankruptcy in 2004 and had always had difficulty managing his money. He stated 

that his law practice had never been lucrative and that he had used the CASA 

funds to acquire personal goods that he hoped would impress family and friends 

and mislead them into thinking that he was doing better financially than was 

actually the case. The evidence clearly established that respondent accepted full 

responsibility for his actions, appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct, and 

expressed remorse for it. 

{¶ 8} In its report, the board commented favorably on respondent’s “selfawareness and commitment to move forward.” It noted that respondent had been 

diagnosed with mild depression and was conscientious in adhering to his 

counseling and medication regime. The board also observed that respondent was 

employed and that he had been released early from community control and was 

no longer under a court-ordered sanction. 

{¶ 9} The board also concluded that this case presented significant 

mitigating circumstances and expressed its belief that respondent was capable of 

one day returning to the competent and ethical practice of law. It accordingly 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law 

rather than permanently disbarred. 

Sanction 

{¶ 10} We agree with the board’s recommendation. Unquestionably, 

respondent violated the public trust by stealing funds from an organization that 

provides services for the most vulnerable members of the community. 

{¶ 11} In imposing an indefinite suspension, we are guided by our 

decision in Disciplinary Counsel v. Kelly, 121 Ohio St.3d 39, 2009-Ohio-317, 901 

N.E.2d 798. There, we considered the matter of an attorney who, as here, 

misappropriated a large amount of money from a charity on whose board she 

served. That attorney had no prior disciplinary record, made full restitution, 

acknowledged her wrongdoing, and fully cooperated in the disciplinary process. 

In addition, she was engaged in other charitable pursuits and was well respected 

in the legal community. Viewing those facts in their totality, we felt that the 

attorney “may be able to recover her ethical orientation and serve in a 

professional capacity” at some point in the future. Kelly, at ¶ 18. 

{¶ 12} Respondent shares many of the same characteristics. He has made 

complete restitution and fully understands the gravity of his misconduct. 

Respondent immediately reported his violation and is taking active measures to 

address the underlying issues that may have precipitated his actions. Respondent 

was very well perceived within the legal community, and the sentencing judge 

described him as in the midst of a “brilliant career.” As in Kelly, we believe that 

respondent may eventually be able to establish the ability to practice law both 

competently and ethically, and we decline to permanently foreclose that 

opportunity. 

{¶ 13} Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the 

practice of law in Ohio, and credit is given for the interim suspension imposed on 

January 8, 2010. 
January Term, 2010 

5

{¶ 14} Costs are taxed to respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

 O’DONNELL, J., concurs in imposing an indefinite suspension but would 

not give credit for time served under the interim suspension. 

__________________ 

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen H. Osmond, for 

relator. 

Donald R. Hicks, for respondent. 

______________________