|
|
| 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases |
Public Information Home
Court Disbars Youngstown Attorney, Three Others Indefinitely Suspended
In separate disciplinary actions announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio permanently disbarred Youngstown attorney Edward F. Sturgeon and indefinitely suspended the law licenses of attorneys Reginald A. Cooke of Columbus, Christopher T. Carlson of Wadsworth and Steven L. Crossmock of Toledo.
2006-1209. Disciplinary Counsel v. Sturgeon, 2006-Ohio-5708.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 05-017. Edward Francis Sturgeon, Attorney Registration No. 0033744, is permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-5708.pdf
(Nov. 15, 2006) The license of Youngstown attorney Edward F. Sturgeon has been permanently revoked as a result of three separate instances in which Sturgeon engaged in or attempted to initiate improper sexual conduct with female clients who sought his professional services.
The Supreme Court adopted findings by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that Sturgeon made lewd and suggestive comments to all three clients, including attempts to obtain sexual favors in exchange for reduced legal fees, and that he engaged in oral sex with one client, exposed his genitals to another and fondled and attempted to forcibly kiss a third client after moving a scheduled appointment from his office to the woman's home.
The Court agreed with the board's findings that Sturgeon's actions violated state disciplinary rules that prohibit conduct that reflects adversely on an attorney's fitness to practice law and acceptance of employment in situations where an attorney's personal interests interfere with the exercise of professional judgment on behalf of a client.
In determining the sanction for his misconduct, the Court noted that Sturgeon acted to gratify his own selfish sexual interests, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, committed multiple offenses, failed to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings and made false statements during the disciplinary process, failed to apologize or express remorse for his actions and caused harm to vulnerable clients.
While a three-member hearing panel and the full disciplinary board recommended that Sturgeon receive an indefinite license suspension, the Court voted 6-1 to impose its ultimate sanction of permanent disbarment. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that Sturgeon's actions “were rude, offensive and thoroughly unprofessional. He used the attorney-client relationship to gratify his own sexual interests rather than focusing on the legal needs of his clients. His crude behavior would not be acceptable in any social setting, and it was outrageously inappropriate in the midst of an attorney-client relationship.”
Noting that making unsolicited sexual advances to a client “perverts the very essence of the lawyer-client relationship,” as well as violating an attorney's fiduciary duty to think and act solely in the client's best interest, the Court added that in this case Sturgeon “not only committed multiple outrageous sexual misdeeds with clients, but he also lied repeatedly during the disciplinary process. … Respondent's dishonesty about his misconduct and his willingness to blame his clients rather than accept responsibility for his own actions demonstrates that he is no longer fit to practice a profession grounded on candor, integrity, loyalty and fairness.”
The majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Alice Robie Resnick, Paul E. Pfeifer, Maureen O'Connor, Terrence O'Donnell and Judith Ann Lanzinger. Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton dissented, indicating that, while Sturgeon's conduct was “despicable,” she would defer to the judgment of the hearing panel and board of commissioners and impose an indefinite suspension with demanding conditions of rehabilitation, rather than permanent disbarment.
Contacts
Lori J. Brown, 614.461.0256, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Mary Jane Stephens, 216.758.2308, for Edward Sturgeon.
2006-1148. Toledo Bar Assn. v. Crossmock, 2006-Ohio-5706.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 05-068. Steven Lynn Crossmock, Attorney Registration No. 0041947, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton and O'Connor, JJ., concur.
O'Donnell, J., dissents and would permanently disbar respondent.
Lanzinger, J., not participating.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-5706.pdf
(Nov. 15, 2006) The Supreme Court has indefinitely suspended the law license of Toledo attorney Steven L. Crossmock for violating three provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court adopted findings by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that, over a 10-year period, Crossmock misappropriated legal fees from personal-injury cases totaling an estimated $300,000 that he was contractually bound to share with his law firm. Crossmock admitted depositing checks payable to the firm in his own escrow account, paying out the amounts due to clients and then converting the balance for his own use rather than sharing that balance with his law firm as he had agreed to do. The Court agreed with the board's findings that these actions violated state attorney discipline rules that prohibit conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and conduct that reflects adversely on an attorney's fitness to practice law.
On a second count, the Court adopted the disciplinary board's finding that Crossmock made impermissible payments totaling more than $6,500 to or on behalf of a personal injury client that went to cover items not related to the litigation or investigation of her case. This conduct was found to be in violation of the disciplinary rule that bars a lawyer from providing financial assistance or advancing funds to a client for expenses other than litigation costs.
In setting the sanction for his misconduct, the Court noted that Crossmock had no prior disciplinary record, made full and timely restitution of the converted funds to his law firm, cooperated with disciplinary proceedings and did not harm any of his clients or misappropriate any client funds. The Court adopted the board's recommended penalty of an indefinite suspension lasting at least two years, and set a number of pre-conditions for any future reinstatement of his license including evaluation by a mental health professional and ongoing compliance with physician-recommended treatment and medication for a diagnosed condition of bipolar disorder.
Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger did not participate in the Court's deliberations or vote in the case. The other six Justices joined in a unanimous per curiam opinion.
Contacts
Joseph P. Dawson, 419.241.9770, for the Toledo Bar Association.
Charles Kettlewell, 614.436.2750, for Steven Crossmock.
2006-1187. Disciplinary Counsel v. Carlson, 2006-Ohio-5707.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 05-085. Christopher Thomas Carlson, Attorney Registration No. 0062450, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio effective October 8, 2005.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-5707.pdf
(Nov. 15, 2006) In a 7-0 decision announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio indefinitely suspended the license of Wadsworth attorney Christopher T. Carlson for professional misconduct in his dealings with a client, Gina Gigandet, whom he represented in a domestic relations case and later in probating the estate of her husband.
Adopting findings of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline, the Court held that Carlson violated five provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he improperly charged Gigandet a 33 percent contingent fee to secure her $20,000 from her husband's $53,000 estate, filed a falsified final accounting with the probate court that concealed his excessive fee, and subsequently made multiple false and misleading statements to disciplinary authorities, alleging that he had earned the $6,666.67 fee he collected from Gigandet when he represented her in an earlier domestic relations matter.
The Court agreed with the disciplinary board's findings that Carlson's actions violated the state disciplinary rules that prohibit an attorney from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, failure to disclose information he was required by law to disclose and charging an illegal or clearly excessive fee.
In imposing an indefinite suspension of at least two years for this misconduct, the Court noted that Carlson acted with a selfish motive, made false statements during the disciplinary process, harmed a vulnerable client, failed to make restitution, and had committed prior disciplinary violations that resulted in a two-year license suspension in October 2003 that has remained in force pending the outcome of the current charges.
In today's order, the Court imposed a new indefinite license suspension retroactive to the Oct. 8, 2005 expiration date of Carlson's earlier suspension. Carlson was also ordered to make restitution of $6,666.67 to Gigandet within 30 days and to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.
Contacts
Joseph M. Caligiuri, 614.461.0257, for the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
No current contact information available for Christopher T. Carlson.
2006-1241. Columbus Bar Assn. v. Cooke, 2006-Ohio-5709.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 03-095. Reginald Alpha Cooke, Attorney Registration No. 0031031, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Lundberg Stratton, J., not participating.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-5709.pdf
(Nov. 15, 2006) The law license of Columbus attorney Reginald A. Cooke has been indefinitely suspended for at least two years for engaging in a pattern of misconduct during his representation of a client in a personal injury case and a personal bankruptcy action.
According to findings by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline, after entering into a contingent fee agreement to represent Cheryl Ragland in a personal injury case arising from a February 2002 traffic accident, Cooke filed a personal bankruptcy petition on Ragland's behalf in April 2002. Cooke did not disclose Ragland's potential recovery from the personal injury claim on a schedule of assets. He also did not mention the claim during a creditors' conference at which the bankruptcy trustee asked directly about the existence of any pending insurance claims or lawsuits. Cooke subsequently negotiated with Ragland's insurance company for a resolution of her injury claim, and received a $17,500 settlement on her behalf in August 2002 without disclosing to the bankruptcy court either the existence of the claim or receipt of the settlement.
In September 2002, the bankruptcy court discharged Ragland's debts, but subsequently re-opened her case when it learned about the insurance settlement. The court filed an adversary action to apply proceeds from the insurance award to her bankruptcy estate. In response to questions from the bankruptcy court, Cooke falsely stated that the accident settlement was a “post-petition wage loss settlement” despite knowing that the accident took place two months before he filed the bankruptcy petition and that virtually none of the insurance award was based on lost wages.
In a separate count, the board found that Cooke had falsely claimed to have distributed various amounts from the insurance settlement to Ragland and to her physician when in fact he had deposited the entire $17,500 settlement check in his office trust account and had written checks depleting the balance of that account to approximately $150 while he still owed Ragland a portion of the settlement and had not informed her that he intended to bill her additional thousands of dollars in alleged hourly and contingent fees from the settlement proceeds.
The Court adopted the board's findings that Cooke's actions violated 14 different provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility including, among others, the state disciplinary rules that prohibit an attorney from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, accepting a case the attorney is not competent to handle, knowingly making a false statement of fact, knowingly using false evidence or perjured testimony, charging a clearly excessive fee and failing to maintain client funds in a separate account.
Finding that Cooke acted from a selfish or dishonest motive, engaged in a pattern of misconduct, refused to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his actions and gave false statements during disciplinary proceedings, the Court voted 6-0, with Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton not participating, to impose an indefinite suspension as the appropriate sanction for Cooke's misconduct. In their per curiam opinion, the Justices held that: “There is simply no place in the legal profession for those who are unwilling or unable to be honest with clients, the courts and their colleagues. (Cooke's) misrepresentations to the bankruptcy court, to his client, to relator during the disciplinary investigation and to the panel during the hearing compel an actual suspension from the practice of law.”
Contacts
Judith McInturff, 614.464.2235, for the
Columbus Bar Association.
John Yaklevich, 614.241.2156, for Reginald A. Cooke.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."