Communications Office - 2006 Oral Argument SummariesTuesday, July 18, 2006 Columbus Bar Association v. Linnen, Case no. 2006-0443 Disciplinary Counsel v. Lord, Case nos. 2006-0463 Disciplinary Counsel v. Manning, Case no. 2006-0738 Attorney Discipline Columbus Bar Association v. Linnen, Case no. 2006-0443 The Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline has recommended that the law license of Columbus attorney Steven P. Linnen be indefinitely suspended for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility arising from his criminal convictions for public indecency, sexual imposition and aggravated trespass. Because Linnen has filed objections to the board's recommended sanction, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case. In a September 2004 plea agreement with Franklin County prosecutors, Linnen admitted that he was the person identified by Columbus news media as “the naked photographer,” and was responsible for 38 separate incidents in which women in public and private locations across Central Ohio were confronted by a man wearing only athletic shoes and a knit cap, with a camera pressed to his face, who then took pictures of their reactions upon being confronted by an unclothed male. In several incidents, Linnen admitted that he pinched or otherwise touched victims who did not immediately react to his acts of exposure. Linnen was convicted of 53 misdemeanors and sentenced to 18 months of work release, a $3,000 fine and court-ordered counseling. In October 2005 his work release sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for five years. Following his convictions, the Columbus Bar Association undertook disciplinary proceedings against Linnen that culminated in the board of commissioners' findings that he had committed multiple violations of the state disciplinary rules that prohibit illegal conduct involving moral turpitude and conduct adversely reflecting on an attorney's fitness to practice law. In recommending an indefinite license suspension as the appropriate sanction for this misconduct, the board noted the mitigating factors that Linnen had no prior disciplinary infractions, cooperated with disciplinary authorities and presented character references. As aggravating factors, the board found that Linnen acted with a motive of self-gratification, engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple acts and multiple victims, and had failed to satisfactorily acknowledge either the wrongfulness of his actions or the psychological trauma he had caused to a number of his victims. Linnen presented psychiatric testimony regarding his diagnoses of sexual addiction and exhibitionism as mitigating evidence. However, the board found that Linnen's unwillingness to be treated with drugs for these disorders and the high probability of future recidivism or substitutive sexual behavior by persons with these conditions undermined his claims that his conditions were under control and he was able to resume the competent and ethical practice of law. Attorneys for Linnen argue that, in recommending a sanction, the disciplinary board placed too little emphasis on the role that Linnen's obsessive mental disorders played in his unlawful conduct, and gave too little weight to testimony by his psychotherapist and social worker attesting to his conscientious attendance at 12-step programs and voluntary participation in the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (OLAP) since his conviction. They urge the Court to impose a definite term of suspension of two years or less, and to stay some part of that term on conditions that Linnen provide medical evidence of control of his mental disorders and continuing compliance with his OLAP contract and other recovery programs. Contacts Geoffrey Stern, 614.462.5400, for Steven Linnen. Attorney Discipline Disciplinary Counsel v. Lord, Case nos. 2006-0463 The Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline has recommended that attorney John Albert Lord of North Royalton in Cuyahoga County be suspended from the practice of law for two years, with the second year stayed on conditions, for multiple acts of neglect and other professional misconduct. The board found that Lord engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; neglected legal matters entrusted to him by clients; and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. In multiple instances, the board found that Lord was hired to represent clients facing foreclosure of their homes, but failed to maintain contact with his clients and did not file necessary paperwork, respond to client communications via telephone and mail, or appear for scheduled court proceedings. In several cases Lord told clients and court officials that he was not aware of hearings, claiming that he did not receive notice via mail, that he was “having trouble with his phone,” or that he had left messages with court employees that he would be unable to attend. In recommending a sanction, the board cited the aggravating factors that Lord engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses and clients, failed to cooperate with disciplinary authorities, submitted false statements and evidence, and refused to accept responsibility or acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct. The panel also noted that Lord was suspended from practice on Dec. 5, 2005, for failing to register with the Court. He was reinstated Jan. 18, 2006, after registering. Lord has filed objections to the board's findings and recommended sanction. He maintains that the acts and omissions with which he was charged were not as egregious as they were made out to be, and contends that disciplinary counsel did not establish the rule violations charged against him by the required standard of “clear and convincing evidence.”Contacts John A. Lord, 440.582.2374. Attorney DisciplineDisciplinary Counsel v. Manning, Case no. 2006-0738 Centerville attorney Thomas Manning urges the Supreme Court to reject a recommendation by disciplinary authorities that his law license be suspended for two years for neglecting a medical malpractice case and making false representations and engaging in fraudulent conduct to avoid liability to his clients for that neglect. According to findings by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline, Manning agreed to represent Alfred and Nellie Combs in a civil action in 2000 and subsequently collected from them a $1,000 fee that he said was for an outside expert to evaluate their medical malpractice claim. The Combses later learned that Manning had deposited the fee in his personal bank account and had not made use of an outside expert. Over a period of more than three years, Manning told the Combses on multiple occasions that he had filed their lawsuit in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court and that the case was proceeding. In December 2003, Manning met with the clients and told them he had settled their claim for $47,500 and presented them with documents purporting to be a release of confidentiality agreement and an itemized statement for distribution of the settlement. According to the distribution statement, the settlement was to be paid in three installments with the largest portion, $27,500 deferred until February 2005. Manning obtained the Combses signatures on the documents and gave them a check for $5,221.14, which he represented as their “share” of a first installment of $10,000 minus his legal fees and out-of-pocket expenses. When Manning failed to forward funds to them from the second scheduled settlement installment, the Combses hired another attorney who determined that Manning had never filed their lawsuit and had invented the settlement story as a way to cover up his neglect and avoid a legal malpractice claim by paying them from his own funds. The Board concluded that Manning's conduct violated multiple state disciplinary rules, including those that prohibit neglect of entrusted client legal matters; conduct involving dishonesty, fraud deceit or misrepresentation; conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; charging an excessive fee and failing to deposit unearned client funds in a separate trust account. The board recommended a two-year license suspension as the appropriate penalty for this misconduct. In his objections to the board's recommendation, Manning asks the Court to impose only a stayed license suspension. He argues that the board report assigned no mitigating value to three letters Manning submitted attesting to his good character and reputation, and made no reference to any of the previous court decisions Manning cited in which attorneys who committed similar acts of misconduct received less severe sanctions than a two-year suspension from practice. Manning also asserts that cases cited by the board as comparable to his actually involved attorneys who committed more severe rule violations, did harm to multiple clients and/or failed to acknowledge guilt or to cooperate with disciplinary authorities. Contacts William G. Knapp, 937.291.3400, for Thomas Manning. These summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information solely to help news reporters determine if they want to cover the arguments. The summaries are not part of the case record and are not considered by the Court at any point during its deliberations. Parties interested in receiving additional information are encouraged to review the case file available in the Supreme Court Clerk's Office (614.387.9530), or to contact counsel of record. |