Opinion ID: 2690564
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: An Indefinite Suspension Is Appropriate

Text: [I]t is true that we ordinarily accept the panel’s and board’s conclusions as to the propriety of an attorney’s conduct or the appropriate sanction, and to that extent, our decisions reflect deference to their expertise. But as the ultimate arbiter of misconduct and sanctions in disciplinary cases, this court is not bound by factual and legal conclusions drawn by either the panel or the board. See Cincinnati Bar Assn v. Powers, 119 Ohio St.3d 473, 2008-Ohio-4785, 895 N.E.2d 172, ¶ 21. Accord Disciplinary Counsel v. Furth (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 173, 181, 754 N.E.2d 219; Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Reid (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 327, 330, 708 N.E.2d 193. Thus, we need not defer to either’s conclusions and remain free to exercise our independent judgment as to evidentiary weight and applicable law. Disciplinary Counsel v. Kelly, 121 Ohio St.3d 39, 2009-Ohio-317, 901 N.E.2d 798, ¶ 11. {¶ 19} While the board’s recommendation of “permanent disbarment is the presumptive disciplinary measure for acts of misappropriation and the starting point for determining the required sanction,” id. at ¶ 17, citing Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio St.3d 490, 2002-Ohio-2490, 769 N.E.2d 816, ¶ 15, we are able to temper that disposition by giving a lesser sanction when significant mitigating circumstances exist. Id., citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Wise, 85 Ohio St.3d 169, 171, 707 N.E.2d 852 (1999), citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Kurtz, 82 Ohio St.3d 55, 693 N.E.2d 1080 (1998). {¶ 20} The following cases provide guidance on the question whether the lesser sanction of an indefinite suspension is appropriate here. In Disciplinary 6 January Term, 2012 Counsel v. Harris, 96 Ohio St.3d 138, 2002-Ohio-2988, 772 N.E.2d 621, Caesar M. Harris, a solo practitioner, converted money entrusted to him by an institutionalized client. Id. at ¶ 1. We imposed an indefinite suspension upon Harris, finding that there were sufficient mitigating factors to weigh against permanent disbarment. Id. at ¶ 6. Specifically, we noted: [I]n addition to the board’s recommendation [of indefinite suspension], we have before us an honorably discharged veteran who has been a member of the bar for twenty-seven years and has never been disciplined for professional misconduct before. [Harris] has been active his entire life in the Open Door Missionary Baptist Church. His pastor and several professional acquaintances, including past and present members of the judiciary, submitted letters or gave testimony to assure us that [Harris] was dedicated and trustworthy. The probate court thought that some of [Harris’] efforts constituted legitimate professional services. Id. {¶ 21} In Kelly, 121 Ohio St.3d 39, 2009-Ohio-317, 901 N.E.2d 798, Kristen Lynn Kelly served as treasurer for the Greene County Humane Society (“GCHS”), an unpaid position. Id. at ¶ 1. She transferred GCHS funds to the bank where she kept her personal accounts and deposited the funds into new accounts to which only she had access. Id. at ¶ 4-5. Kelly misused her authority as treasurer and misappropriated over $40,000 from GCHS, which she used to pay her family’s living expenses. Id. at ¶ 5.1 1. Kelly also engaged in practicing law while employed as a magistrate, a violation of Canon 4(F) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 22} We rejected the panel’s recommendation of a two-year suspension, with six months stayed, and imposed an indefinite suspension. In so doing, we found that significant mitigating circumstances existed that overcame the presumptive disciplinary measure of disbarment for acts of misappropriation. Respondent has unquestionably violated the public trust by embezzling funds.    But through evidence of her philanthropic pursuits, her reputation for providing competent legal services, and her efforts on behalf of the bar, respondent has established that she may be able to recover her ethical orientation and serve in a professional capacity. See Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Johnson, 96 Ohio St.3d 192, 2002-Ohio-3998, 772 N.E.2d 1184 (indefinite suspension from practice, not disbarment, ordered for attorney convicted of extortion for acts committed while he served as a state senator).    [Kelly’s] good record preceding her misconduct suggests the possibility that eventually she may be capable of contributing professionally to her community in the future. Id. at ¶ 18-19. {¶ 23} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Muntean, 127 Ohio St.3d 427, 2010Ohio-6133, 940 N.E.2d 942, Christopher Peter Muntean was treasurer of the Summit County Court Appointed Special Advocates (“CASA”) board. Id. at ¶ 1. In that capacity, he began using CASA funds for his personal expenses, and within a few months, he had converted nearly $50,000 to his own use. Id. at ¶ 5. He was charged with, and pled guilty to, one count of grand theft, a fourth-degree felony. Id. at ¶ 2 and 5. {¶ 24} In imposing an indefinite suspension, we found that Muntean shared many of the same characteristics as Kelly. 8 January Term, 2012 [Muntean] has made complete restitution and fully understands the gravity of his misconduct. [He] immediately reported his violation and is taking active measures to address the underlying issues [a diagnosis of mild depression] that may have precipitated his actions. [Muntean] 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 [Muntean] may eventually be able to establish the ability to practice law both competently and ethically, and we decline to permanently foreclose that opportunity. Id. at ¶ 12. {¶ 25} The mitigating factors in this matter strongly correlate to those in Harris, Kelly, and Muntean. Peterson self-reported his misconduct and has accepted responsibility for and understands the gravity of his actions. He has made complete restitution to Gabriel. Also, Peterson is taking active measures to address his diagnosis of bipolar mood disorder that may have precipitated his actions. Other sanctions have been imposed upon Peterson, including a 30-day jail sentence. Finally, Peterson submitted letters and testimony from members of his community to assure us that he is hard-working, honest, of high moral character, and willing to serve others. Accordingly, we determine that an indefinite suspension with conditions for reinstatement is appropriate in this case. Disposition {¶ 26} Paul Nickolas Peterson is therefore indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. He may not petition for reinstatement of his license before two years from the date of our order. In his petition for reinstatement, Peterson must show, in addition to fulfilling the requirements of Gov.Bar R. 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO V(10)(C) though (E), that he has received appropriate treatment for his diagnosis of bipolar mood disorder and that a qualified psychiatrist has certified that he is able to return to the competent, ethical, and professional practice of law. Costs are taxed to respondent. Judgment accordingly. O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. ____________________ Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Carol A. Costa, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. McGinty, Hilow, and Spellacy, Co., L.P.A., and Mary L. Cibella, for respondent. _________________________ 10