|
|
| 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases |
Public Information Home
Supreme Court Suspends Centerville and Columbus Attorneys
In separate disciplinary actions announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio suspended for two years the law license of Centerville attorney Thomas Joel Manning, and suspended for two years with one year stayed the law license of Columbus attorney Ronald Howard Sebree.
2006-0738. Disciplinary Counsel v. Manning, 2006-Ohio-5794.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 05-044. Thomas Joel Manning, Attorney Registration No. 0059759, is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years.
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-5794.pdf
(Nov. 22, 2006) The Supreme Court voted unanimously to suspend attorney Thomas Joel Manning of Centerville 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.
The Court adopted findings by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that Manning agreed to represent Alfred and Nellie Combs in a medical malpractice action in 2000 and subsequently collected from them a $1,000 fee that he said was for an outside expert. The Combses later learned that Manning had deposited the fee in his law firm's operating account and had not made use of an outside expert.
During a period of more than three years, Manning told the Combses on multiple occasions that he had filed their lawsuit in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas and that the case was proceeding. At a meeting with the clients in December 2003, Manning told them he had settled their claim for $47,500 and presented them with documents purporting to be a “release and 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 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 malpractice claim by paying them from his own funds.
In its per curiam decision, the Court accepted the board's conclusion that Manning's conduct violated multiple state disciplinary rules, including those that prohibit conduct involving dishonesty, fraud deceit or misrepresentation; conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; conduct that reflects adversely on an attorney's fitness to practice; neglect of entrusted client legal matters; attempting to exonerate himself from liability to a client for malpractice; failure to promptly return funds to which a client is entitled; charging an excessive fee and failing to deposit unearned client funds in a dedicated trust account.
In setting a sanction, the Court considered the mitigating factors that Manning had no prior disciplinary record, had cooperated during the disciplinary proceedings and presented evidence in support of his reputation for honesty and professionalism aside from this incident. Despite those factors, the Justices voted unanimously to reject Manning's objections and impose the penalty recommended by the board of commissioners: a two-year license suspension.
The Court held that: “The mitigating evidence presented by respondent does not convince us that leniency is warranted, and we will not stay the suspension as he requests. Respondent engaged in a methodical pattern of dishonest conduct over many months, lying to his clients repeatedly and even covering his tracks with a fraudulent settlement document that barred the clients from discussing the ‘settlement' with anyone else. This conduct is unacceptable for a member of a profession in which loyalty, candor, and diligence are essential. Respondent's view that he should be permitted to continue to practice law without any period of actual suspension suggests that he does not grasp the seriousness of his misconduct and does not understand how damaging this kind of dishonesty and deception can be to our legal system.”
Contacts
Joseph Caligiuri, 614.461.0256, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
William G. Knapp, 937.291.3400, for Thomas J. Manning.
2004-1060. Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 2006-Ohio-5788.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 02-040. Ronald Howard Sebree, Attorney Registration No. 0063210, is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with one year stayed on conditions.
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-5788.pdf
(Nov. 22, 2006) The Supreme Court voted 7-0 to suspend the law license of Ronald Howard Sebree of Columbus for two years, with one year of that term stayed, for multiple counts of professional misconduct involving failure to handle client funds and maintain his law office financial records in accordance with mandatory provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court adopted findings of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that in 2000 and 2001 Sebree had not maintained a client trust account at a bank while engaged in private practice and that he had accepted funds from at least one client during that time. The board also found that Sebree did not keep a ledger or other written records of the funds that he received while practicing law and could not produce bank statements for client funds. Finally, the board found that Sebree had not maintained malpractice insurance and had not advised his clients of that fact.
The Supreme Court adopted the board's conclusions that Sebree had violated state disciplinary rules that require attorneys to maintain client funds a separate trust account, to keep detailed accounts of fees received and worked performed for each of their clients, and to advise clients in writing when the attorney does not maintain a prescribed minimum level of professional liability insurance.
In setting the sanction for this misconduct, the Court considered the mitigating factor that Sebree did not act from a dishonest or selfish motive. As an aggravating factor the Court noted that Sebree had previously received a stayed six-month license suspension in July 2002 for neglecting an entrusted
legal matter, failing to seek the lawful objectives of a client through reasonable means, and failing to carry out a contract of professional employment. The Justices also noted that Sebree had failed to
cooperate with an attorney appointed to monitor his practice and help him adopt competent office management practices during his previous stayed suspension.
In today's per curiam decision, the Court noted that Sebree's “primary failing appears to be his inattentive and sloppy management of his law practice.” Pointing out that it had identified similar problems when it imposed the earlier stayed suspension and ordered Sebree's office management practices to be monitored and reviewed by a representative of the bar association, the Court observed that “(r)espondent seems not to have taken the monitor's recommendations to heart, and a period of actual suspension from the practice of law is now warranted.”
The Court adopted the board's recommended sanction of a two-year license suspension with the second year stayed provided that Sebree commit no further misconduct during the suspension period and allow further monitoring of his law office management practices.
Contacts
C.J. Fogarty, 937.228.5912, for the Dayton Bar Association.
Ronald H. Sebree, pro se: 614.921.2450.
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."