[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell, 125 Ohio St.3d 458, 2010-Ohio-2114.] 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. CANTRELL. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell, 

125 Ohio St.3d 458, 2010-Ohio-2114.] 

Attorneys — Misconduct — Multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules and the 

Rules of Professional Conduct — Indefinite license suspension. 

(No. 2009-2339 ⎯ Submitted February 24, 2010 ⎯ Decided May 20, 2010.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-021. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Doreen Cantrell, Attorney Registration No. 0040032, 

of Willoughby, Ohio, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1988. In 

August 2009, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a nine-count amended complaint 

alleging multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional 

Responsibility, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Supreme Court Rules 

for the Government of the Bar.1

 Respondent participated in the disciplinary 

investigation and stipulated to certain facts and misconduct but failed to appear at 

the panel hearing. 

{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline now 

recommends that we indefinitely suspend respondent’s license to practice based 

upon findings that she engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving the improper 

use of her client trust account, the misappropriation of client funds, and the 

 

1. On December 14, 2009, this court imposed an interim felony suspension against respondent 

pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4) for criminal convictions unrelated to the conduct at issue in 

this disciplinary proceeding. In re Cantrell, 123 Ohio St.3d 1517, 2009-Ohio-6503, 918 N.E.2d 

162. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

knowing practice of law while her license was inactive. We accept the board’s 

findings of misconduct and agree that an indefinite suspension of respondent’s 

license is appropriate. 

Misconduct 

Improper Use of Client Trust Account 

{¶ 3} Counts One, Two, Six, and Seven relate to respondent’s use of her 

Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts account (“trust account”) for personal 

expenses. The parties stipulated and the board found with respect to Count Two 

that respondent continued to maintain a trust account from November 16, 2007, 

until May 15, 2008, while her license was inactive. Respondent routinely 

deposited personal funds in it and used the account to pay her personal expenses 

and those of her son and brother, who were not her clients. 

{¶ 4} With regard to Count Six, respondent stipulated that in August 

2008, she borrowed $18,000 from a friend to cover her litigation costs in the event 

her ex-husband sought custody of her son. She deposited the money into her trust 

account and used it to pay personal expenses, including personal court costs, car 

repairs, school clothes for her son, computer supplies, veterinary bills, groceries, 

utilities, and bank service charges. 

{¶ 5} Count Seven involves respondent’s inconsistent statements 

regarding the beneficiary of certain checks issued from her trust account. On 

November 24, 2008, respondent sent a letter to relator stating that she had issued 

the checks for the benefit of her brother. At her deposition, however, she testified 

that she had made those expenditures for herself and her son. 

{¶ 6} The parties also stipulated that from April 15, 2008, to December 

2, 2008, respondent failed to maintain sufficient funds in her trust account, 

causing the account to be overdrawn 38 times, as charged in Count One of the 

complaint. 
January Term, 2010 

3

{¶ 7} The parties stipulated and the board found that respondent’s 

conduct with respect to these counts constitutes four violations of both 

Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) (requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients separate from 

the lawyer’s own property) and 8.4(h) (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects 

on the lawyer's fitness to practice law). The board also found that respondent’s 

conflicting statements regarding the beneficiary of certain checks issued from her 

trust account violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a) (prohibiting knowingly making a false 

statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter). 

{¶ 8} However, both the panel and the board found that relator had failed 

to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that respondent had made false 

statements regarding her alleged repayment of the $18,000 personal loan or that 

she had failed to cooperate in the disciplinary investigation regarding her misuse 

of her trust account. Therefore, they recommend that we dismiss the violation of 

Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(a) alleged in Count Six and the violations of Gov.Bar R. 

V(4)(G) alleged in Counts Six and Seven of relator’s complaint. 

Representation of a Decedent’s Estate 

{¶ 9} Counts Three, Four, Five, and Eight of relator’s complaint involve 

respondent’s conduct during the administration of a decedent’s estate. 

Respondent accepted a $1,000 retainer and agreed to represent the estate on April 

15, 2008, while her license to practice law was inactive. She admitted that she 

had filed the initial probate documents before restoring her license to practice law 

to active status, as charged in Count Three of relator’s complaint. 

{¶ 10} Counts Four and Five involve events in October 2008, when 

respondent withdrew the entire balance of her trust account because she had lost 

her checkbook. The bank paid two outstanding checks that respondent had failed 

to record, overdrawing the account. Respondent then deposited a $3,439 check 

from the estate, which she testified represented fees for work she had performed. 

But respondent did not file an application for approval of the estate’s attorney fees 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

with the probate court until December 15, 2008 (Count Four). And when 

respondent failed to appear for numerous hearings on her application for fees and 

amendments thereto, her request was denied. Thus, respondent was not entitled to 

receive the $3,439 that she deposited into her trust account and used to pay her 

personal expenses. See R.C. 2113.36. 

{¶ 11} In April 2009, a beneficiary of the estate filed a complaint for 

concealment against respondent and the executor of the estate, alleging that she 

had received only $25,000 of the $50,000 distribution stated in the final 

accounting of the estate. 

{¶ 12} Respondent stipulated that on December 12, 2008, she deposited 

$50,000 from the estate into her trust account, which then contained no other 

client funds, as charged in Count Eight of the complaint. She distributed $25,000 

to one beneficiary and was to hold the remaining $25,000 in trust while she 

attempted to negotiate a settlement with her. From December 2008 to the end of 

March 2009, respondent wrote a series of checks to cash and made cash 

withdrawals depleting all but $265 of the $25,000 that she had held in trust for the 

estate. On August 10, 2009, the probate court issued a judgment entry finding 

respondent guilty of concealing assets and awarded the beneficiary a $25,000 

judgment plus a ten percent penalty. 

{¶ 13} Based upon the foregoing, the parties stipulated and the board 

found that by representing the estate while her license was inactive (Count Three), 

respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law 

in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that 

jurisdiction) and Gov.Bar R. VI(2)(A) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law 

while registered as an attorney on inactive status). 

{¶ 14} By receiving attorney fees not approved by the probate court 

(Count Four), the board found that respondent had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) 

and 8.4(h). The board also found that respondent had violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 
January Term, 2010 

5

(requiring an attorney to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 

representing a client), 1.5(a) (prohibiting an attorney from charging or collecting 

an illegal or clearly excessive fee), and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from 

engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). However, 

neither the panel nor the board found clear and convincing evidence that 

respondent’s conduct with respect to the $3,439 payment of alleged attorney fees 

violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting knowingly make a false statement of 

fact or law to a tribunal) or 8.4(c) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, 

fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). Therefore, the panel and the board 

recommend that we dismiss those alleged violations with respect to Count Four. 

{¶ 15} The parties stipulated and the board found that respondent’s 

conduct with respect to Count Five violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a) and 8.4(h). And 

with respect to Count Eight, the board accepted the parties’ stipulation that 

respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 8.4(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from 

committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty or 

trustworthiness), and 8.4(h). Additionally, the board found that respondent’s 

conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, 

fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 8.4(d). 

Guardianship of a Minor 

{¶ 16} Count Nine involves respondent’s November 18, 2002 application 

to be appointed guardian of the estate of a minor. On November 19, 2002, the 

probate court conditionally granted the application upon her posting a $10,000 

bond. On November 20, 2002, without having posted the required bond, 

respondent signed a warranty deed as the guardian for the minor, conveying real 

property, held in the minor’s name, to his mother. Two days after executing the 

deed, respondent moved the court to waive bond. The court denied the motion, 

and respondent never posted the required bond. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

{¶ 17} The parties stipulated that respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-

102(A)(6)2 (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to 

practice law). The board agreed and also found that respondent’s conduct 

violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 

or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the 

administration of justice), 7-101(A)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally 

failing to seek the lawful objectives of the lawyer's client), and 7-102(A)(5) 

(prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of law or fact). 

However, neither the panel nor the board found clear and convincing evidence to 

demonstrate that respondent’s conduct violated DR 7-101(A)(3) (prohibiting 

intentional prejudice or damage to a client during the course of the professional 

relationship). 

{¶ 18} We accept the board’s findings and recommendations with respect 

to each of these nine counts. 

Sanction 

{¶ 19} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 

relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and sanctions 

imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 

2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. In making a final determination, we also 

weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10(B) 

of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings 

Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD 

Proc.Reg.”). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. We are ever mindful that the primary purpose of the 

disciplinary process is not to punish the offender but to protect the public from 

 

2. The Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility address attorney misconduct 

occurring before February 1, 2007, the effective date of the superseding Ohio Rules of 

Professional Conduct. 
January Term, 2010 

7

lawyers who are unworthy of the trust and confidence essential to the attorneyclient relationship. Disciplinary Counsel v. Agopian, 112 Ohio St.3d 103, 2006-

Ohio-6510, 858 N.E.2d 368, ¶ 10. 

{¶ 20} As for aggravating factors, the parties stipulated and the board 

found that respondent had engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple 

offenses. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d). The board found the absence of 

a prior disciplinary record to be a mitigating factor. BCGD Proc.Reg. 

10(B)(2)(a). Relator recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended 

from the practice of law, and both the panel and board agreed. 

{¶ 21} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise, 108 Ohio St.3d 381, 2006-Ohio1194, 843 N.E.2d 1198, ¶ 16-17, we imposed an indefinite suspension for an 

attorney who had misused his trust account, failed to maintain or produce 

adequate records documenting account deposits and withdrawals, and had 

multiple overdrafts. 

{¶ 22} Similarly, in Disciplinary Counsel v. McCauley, 114 Ohio St.3d 

461, 2007-Ohio-4259, 873 N.E.2d 269, ¶ 1, we imposed an indefinite suspension 

for an attorney who had repeatedly withdrawn funds from his client trust account 

and had improperly used the money for his personal and business expenses. 

Although we noted that disbarment is the presumptive sanction for an attorney 

who misappropriates client funds, we found that significant mitigating 

circumstances, including the absence of a prior disciplinary record, cooperation in 

the disciplinary proceedings, remorse, and restitution weighed in favor of an 

indefinite suspension. Id. at ¶ 22-23. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (d). 

{¶ 23} Likewise, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Koury (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 

150, 151, 552 N.E.2d 941, we imposed an indefinite suspension for an attorney 

who, while serving as the executor of a former client’s estate, entered the 

decedent’s home with the assistance of a locksmith and stole approximately 

$27,000 and a ring. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8 

{¶ 24} In contrast, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Hunter, 106 Ohio St.3d 418, 

2005-Ohio-5411, 835 N.E.2d 707, ¶ 36, 40, we disbarred an attorney who had 

misappropriated nearly $300,000 from an incompetent ward and had engaged in 

conduct that was misleading and designed to hide her embezzlement. 

{¶ 25} Here, we accord weight to the board’s recommendation of the 

lesser sanction of indefinite suspension based upon the mitigating evidence that 

respondent has been licensed to practice for approximately 22 years without any 

previous ethical violation. Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely 

suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 

CUPP, JJ., concur. 

 BROWN, C.J., not participating. 

__________________ 

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Heather L. Hissom, 

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

______________________