Court Opinion

ID: 9802062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:58:01.177263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:22.340951
License: Public Domain

Moyer, C.J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 24} I respectfully dissent from the majority decision with respect to the sanction imposed on respondent. Respondent’s conduct warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law.
{¶ 25} “Dishonest conduct on the part of an attorney generally warrants an actual suspension from the practice of law.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Rooney, 110 Ohio St.3d 349, 2006-Ohio-4576, 853 N.E.2d 663, ¶ 12. Respondent made misrepresentations to his client regarding the client’s own property and to his client’s children regarding the client’s mental health. Respondent even threatened the client’s son when the son confronted him. This conduct is in clear violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation).
{¶ 26} Respondent additionally violated four other Disciplinary Rules: DR 1-102(A)(6), 4-101(B)(2), 5-103(B), and 9-102(B)(3). He sold and otherwise disposed of his client’s personal belongings without the client’s knowledge or consent, while the client was in the hospital; he disposed of the client’s assets under the authority of a power of attorney executed by the client but admitted that he knew the client would disapprove of this conduct; he lied to the client’s children in order to gain their consent to his actions; he drafted an inventory of the client’s property that contained several inaccuracies and failed to account for certain items; he never gave any money received from the sale of the client’s property to the client; and he improperly lent money to his client to cover living expenses.
{¶ 27} The cases cited by the majority to support a stayed suspension did not include the totality of the conduct engaged in by respondent, and only Disciplinary Counsel v. Agopian, 112 Ohio St.3d 103, 2006-Ohio-6510, 858 N.E.2d 368, *214involved a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). Even Agopian did not appear to involve an act of dishonesty, but rather “sloppy record keeping” that resulted in the attorney’s submitting inaccurate fee bills. Id. at ¶ 11. The sum total of respondent’s actions, including outright dishonesty, should be punished with an actual suspension for one year, with no time stayed.
O’Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion.