|
|
| 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases |
Public Information Home
Supreme Court Disbars Two, Suspends Three Attorneys
In separate disciplinary actions announced today the Supreme Court of Ohio permanently disbarred attorneys William P. Holder of Akron and Curtis Griffith Jr. of New Lexington, indefinitely suspended the licenses of Scott V. Maybaum of Solon and Lawrence J. Novak of Lancaster, and imposed an 18-month license suspension against Pepper Pike attorney Alan D. Greenberg.
2006-0395. Akron Bar Assn. v. Holder, 2006-Ohio-6506.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 05-062. William P. Holder Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0015110, is permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. 2006-1240, In re Resignation of Holder, is dismissed.
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-6506.pdf
(Dec. 27, 2006) The Supreme Court of Ohio today permanently disbarred Akron attorney William P. Holder for multiple acts of professional misconduct in his representation of a married couple including engaging in conflicts of interest and conduct involving dishonesty and misrepresentation. The Court declined to accept Holder's request to resign from the practice of law.
In a 7-0 per curiam decision, the Court adopted the findings and recommended sanction of disbarment proposed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline. The board found, among other offenses, that Holder abused his professional relationship with his married clients who were considering divorce. Holder first induced the husband to endorse a $47,0000 disability insurance check to him, ostensibly as a strategy to shield the money from the husband's bankruptcy. Holder then persuaded the wife to falsely acknowledge the she or her family trust had retained $25,000 of that amount.
Following default proceedings made necessary because Holder did not respond to repeated communications from the Akron Bar Association or cooperate with the disciplinary board's investigation of his clients' grievance, the board issued a report finding that Holder violated multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility over a four-year period during which he represented the couple in a bankruptcy and several other legal matters.
Holder filed objections to some of the board's findings and the recommended sanction, alleging among other claims that he did not receive proper service of the Akron Bar Association's complaint and that attorneys prosecuting the multiple disciplinary complaints lodged against him since 2000 have been pursuing a personal vendetta.
The Court rejected all of Holder's objections and noted that Holder has a history of past disciplinary infractions and was already under an indefinite suspension from practice for prior misconduct.
The Court held that the undisputed instances of Holder's misconduct, “when considered with his prior disciplinary record, amply justify disbarment. Because of his continued lies and self-dealing, we reject respondent's offer to resign from the practice of law in this state pursuant to Gov.Bar. V(11)(G)(1)(a)(ii). Instead, we permanently disbar respondent from the practice of law in Ohio.”
Contacts
Robert Gippin, 330.376.8336, for the
Akron Bar Association.
Thomas Adgate, 330.535.8771, for William P. Holder.
2006-0461. Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Maybaum, 2006-Ohio-6507.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 05-008. Scott D. Maybaum, Attorney Registration No. 0030587, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, O'Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
O'Donnell, J., would suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for two years.
Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-6507.pdf
(Dec. 27, 2006) In a 6-1 decision announced today, the Supreme Court of Ohio indefinitely suspended the law license of attorney Scott D. Maybaum of Solon for mishandling client funds on deposit in his trust account.
Based on a client grievance filed with the Cuyahoga County Bar Association, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline found that Maybaum violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility when, after settling a personal injury case on behalf of client Diane Cannon-Barron, Maybaum made personal use of $6,976 Barron had left on deposit with him to resolve unpaid medical bills. The bills remained unpaid for more than four years until Barron was alerted to the situation when several of the creditors contacted her threatening collection action.
The three-member panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that heard the complaint found that Maybaum's actions violated the state disciplinary rules that prohibit neglect of an entrusted legal matter; conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; conduct adversely reflecting on an attorney's fitness to practice; failure to maintain accurate records of client funds and failure to promptly pay funds that are payable to a client. The panel noted that Maybaum had previously been disciplined for failing to segregate client funds from his own in a separate trust account, and heard testimony by a psychiatrist that Maybaum suffered from bipolar disorder but often failed to take prescribed medication and was not in control of his condition.
Based on those and other findings, the board of commissioners recommended that Maybaum be indefinitely suspended. Under that sanction, he would be ineligible to apply for reinstatement of his license for a minimum of two years. In today's decision, the Court adopted the board's findings and recommended sanction, including as a condition of reinstatement the requirement that Maybaum submit a report from a qualified mental-health professional establishing that he has completed a treatment program.
“ … (R)espondent stalled negotiations with his client's medical providers and for the most part ignored the client's inquires and those of some creditors for at least four years,” the Court said in its per curiam decision. “Thus, this was not a single ‘mistake,' as respondent would have us think. To the contrary, respondent repeatedly acted in violation of his professional duties and responsibilities, just as the panel and board determined. Moreover, though respondent expressed remorse for his misconduct, we doubt his sincerity.”
The Court considered Maybaum's cooperation during the disciplinary hearings and testimony attesting to his good character, however, the majority agreed with the panel and the board that Maybaum did not satisfy the criteria used to establish a mental disability as a mitigating factor. “The panel and board found that respondent has not been inclined to follow any rules or restrictions put upon him ‘by society, the bar or his physicians.' We agree,” the Court wrote.
Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton entered a dissenting opinion.
“Because I believe that the majority uses respondent's mental illness to justify a stronger sanction, I dissent,” Justice Stratton wrote. “We have a formal process that may be used to suspend an attorney with a mental illness that substantially impairs his or her ability to practice law. The mental-illness suspension process, however, does not make a finding of fault on the underlying complaints. If the majority believes that respondent is not fit to practice because of his mental illness, a mental-illness suspension is the appropriate process by which to suspend respondent, not an increase in discipline.
“To indefinitely suspend respondent based on one incident of misconduct following his stayed suspension in 2003 is to use his mental illness as a sword against him,” Justice Stratton wrote.
Contacts
Robert L. Steely, 440.717.1010, for the
Cuyahoga County Bar Association.
William T. Doyle, 216.363.6025, for Scott D. Maybaum.
2006-1183. Disciplinary Counsel v. Griffith, 2006-Ohio-6518.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 05-058. Curtis Griffith Jr., Attorney Registration No. 0030707, is permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.
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-6518.pdf
(Dec. 27, 2006) The Supreme Court of Ohio has permanently revoked the law license of New Lexington attorney Curtis Griffith, Jr. for multiple counts of professional misconduct including neglecting his clients' cases, failing to repay unearned legal fees and failing to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation.
Griffith's law license has been under an indefinite suspension by the Court since Nov. 24, 2004 for prior misconduct. In June 2005, a complaint alleging three additional counts of professional misconduct was filed against him. When Griffith did not answer the complaint or otherwise cooperate with the investigation, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline initiated default proceedings.
Griffith was charged with mishandling the representation of client Troy A. Ankrum in 2004 in a paternity case in which Griffith accepted $2,900 part of which was to pay for DNA testing. After the DNA test, Griffith failed to share the results with his client. Griffith also failed to notify the client that his law license had been suspended.
Griffith was also charged with mishandling the defense of Gordon W. Hutchinson who had retained Griffith and paid $1,000 to be represented in two child support matters. Multiple times throughout the process, Griffith did not file objections with the court despite Hutchinson's requests that he do so. Griffith also failed to respond to Hutchinson's phone calls.
The board agreed with the findings of a master commissioner that Griffith's acts and omissions in these cases violated state attorney discipline rules, including the rules that prohibit conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and neglect of an entrusted legal matter, and the rule requiring a lawyer to promptly pay funds that a client is entitled to receive. In addition, the board found that Griffith violated a state bar governance rule by failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation.
In today's decision, the Court unanimously adopted the board's conclusions and its recommended sanction of permanent disbarment. The Court agreed that there were no mitigating factors. As aggravating factors the Court noted Griffith's significant record of prior professional sanctions, including a 1998 suspension for defaulting on a child support order and the indefinite suspension imposed against him in 2004. The Court also cited Griffith's failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process, the harm he caused to his clients' legal interests and his failure to make restitution as grounds for permanent disbarment.
Contacts
Jonathan Coughlan, 614.461.0256, for the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
No current contact information available for Curtis Griffith, Jr.
2006-1210. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Greenberg, 2006-Ohio-6519.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 05-009. Alan D. Greenberg, Attorney Registration No. 0011157, is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 18 months.
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-6519.pdf
(Dec. 27, 2006) The Supreme Court of Ohio has suspended the license of attorney Alan D. Greenberg of Pepper Pike for 18 months for multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court specified that Greenberg, who has been registered in retired status since 2003, will be subject to the terms of his suspension from the date of any future application he might file to return to active status.
Greenberg was charged with three counts of professional misconduct and admitted most of the facts underlying the complaint, but denied that he violated any disciplinary rules.
The three counts of misconduct arose from transactions involving Blue E Investment Company (Blue E), a small commercial loan company that Greenberg owns, controls and represents. In 1998, as in previous and later years, Greenberg conducted Blue E business and practiced law as a sole practitioner out of the same office, acting interchangeably as either Blue E's legal counsel or its corporate officer. Most of Blue E's customers have been restaurants and bars.
Beginning in 1998, Greenberg represented the seller in the sale of a tavern to Ray-Bons, Inc., a corporation then owned by Bonnie McCormick and Ray Villanueva, who were husband and wife. The seller introduced Greenberg to McCormick and Villanueva as the tavern's attorney and someone who could help them out. McCormick, who had no business experience, relied on Greenberg's advice in various business dealings with Blue E and others, thinking that he was her lawyer.
After purchasing the tavern for $100,000, Ray-Bons sought to borrow $15,000 from Blue E and McCormick and Villanueva signed a cognovit promissory note for $21,075 as officers of Ray-Bons. When the couple failed to make timely payments on the loan, Greenberg filed a complaint on behalf of Blue E to collect on the Ray-Bons' cognovit note. He sought $21,289 for the total due on the note plus an $800 personal he had made to Villanueva. George Argie, who McCormick later hired to represent her, claimed Greenberg had defrauded the court by overcharging for interest and improperly including the $800 personal loan.
Greenberg obtained a judgment against Ray-Bons, McCormick and Villanueva but took no further action to collect for two years. McCormick and Villanueva divorced and Greenberg continued to act as Blue E's counsel, giving legal advice to McCormick during her sale of the Ray-Bons' tavern. He drafted papers for the prospective purchase, for which Blue E again arranged financing. McCormick testified that at this time, she believed Greenberg was her lawyer. The buyer of the tavern agreed to make payments to Blue E rather than Ray-Bons and Blue E was to apply these payments to reduce Ray-Bons' debt to Blue E. Later, Greenberg identified himself as Ray-Bons' attorney in appealing the denial of an application to renew Ray-Bons' liquor permit before the Ohio Liquor Control Commission.
The board found that by improperly obtaining a judgment on the $800 personal loan with interest by rolling it into a complaint for judgment on the cognovit note, Greenberg had violated several provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including those prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty fraud, deceit and misrepresentation; conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer's fitness to practice. The board found that Greenberg committed additional disciplinary violations by continuing to advise McCormick as to her legal interests and those of Ray-Bons while at the same time acting to protect his own and Blue E's financial interest in Ray-Bons' property, and misrepresenting himself as McCormick's attorney to a public agency in pursuit of his own and Blue E's financial interest.
In a third count, the board found that Greenburg represented a convicted felon, Al Molnar, who proposed to purchase a bar and liquor license by using the name of his uncle. In the course of the transaction, Greenberg endorsed a check made payable to himself and another attorney by signing both names and depositing the check in his law office trust account despite the fact that Greenberg did not have the other attorney's authority to sign on his behalf or negotiate Molnar's check. The board found that Greenberg's conduct violated disciplinary rules that prohibit illegal conduct involving moral turpitude and conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.
In today's 6-1 per curiam opinion, the Court adopted the board's findings that Greenberg had committed the charged disciplinary infractions with the aggravating factors that he acted out of self interest, harmed a vulnerable victim by taking advantage of McCormick's lack of sophistication, and engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses.
“In doing business with McCormick and Molnar, respondent created conflicts of interest while loosely ‘representing' one or both of them, all the while acting in Blue E's and his own interest,” the Court wrote. “In particular, respondent either led McCormick to rely on his advice or did not advise her to seek independent counsel when she clearly considered him to be her attorney. Molnar was also under the impression that respondent represented him.” The Court noted that Greenberg did not object to the board's findings of misconduct or recommended sanction of an 18-month suspension, and held that “an intermediate suspension period – even though respondent has retired – is in the public's interest.”
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 concurred in part and dissented in part from the majority's opinion, writing that she would begin the 18-month suspension now rather than wait for Greenberg to apply to resume active status.
“I know of no precedent in this court for a similar delay in imposing discipline,” Justice Stratton wrote. “If the argument is that we should still enforce discipline despite respondent's retired status because he may apply to resume active status at any time, then it makes more sense to enforce the discipline now. That gives respondent an opportunity to reapply for active status at the expiration of the 18-month suspension, since other than this incident, he has had no discipline and otherwise has a good reputation in the community. The fact that respondent chose to retire at this time seems irrelevant. Delaying discipline seems to make the penalty even harsher.”
Contacts
Cathleen Bolek, 216.781.7956, for the
Cleveland Bar Association.
Richard Koblentz, 216.621.3012, for Alan D. Greenberg.
2006-1622. Disciplinary Counsel v. Novak, 2006-Ohio-6527.
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, No. 06-011. Lawrence John Novak, Attorney Registration No. 0039794, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.
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-6527.pdf
(Dec. 27, 2006) The Supreme Court of Ohio announced today that it has indefinitely suspended the law license of attorney Lawrence John Novak of Lancaster for neglecting a client's divorce and bankruptcy cases and failing to cooperate during investigation of the disciplinary complaint against him.
In a 7-0 per curiam decision, the Court accepted the findings and recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline. The board considered the charges against Novak through default proceedings because Novak did not respond to repeated communications from the Disciplinary Counsel or cooperate with the disciplinary board's investigation of the complaint. The board determined that that Novak neglected client Rebecca M. Baird's divorce and bankruptcy cases, misrepresented work he had performed on her behalf, and failed to advise his client that he had no malpractice insurance.
Baird retained Novak in April 2003, paying him $660 to file Baird's divorce action in Fairfield County Domestic Relations Court and perform trial work on her behalf. Novak also agreed to represent Baird in a bankruptcy, despite his lack of experience in that area, and charged her $750 for his services in that matter.
Novak never filed Baird's divorce complaint. He did file a bankruptcy petition, but failed to include required schedules of Baird's debts and assets and subsequently failed to respond to Baird's inquiries and the court's requests for this information. On at least one occasion, Novak told Baird that he had filed a document in court when he had not.
In today's decision, the Supreme Court adopted the board's findings that Novak's actions violated multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including disciplinary rules that prohibit neglect of an entrusted legal matter, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Court also found that Novak violated rules that require a lawyer to advise a client that the attorney does not carry a minimum level of professional-liability insurance; and require attorneys to cooperate in disciplinary investigations.
In recommending a sanction, the disciplinary board considered as aggravating factors Novak's prior disciplinary record, his pattern of misconduct, failure to appropriately participate in the disciplinary process, failure to acknowledge wrongful conduct and failure to make restitution.
In today's order imposing an indefinite suspension, which bars Novak from applying for reinstatement for a minimum of two years, the Court required as conditions of future reinstatement that Novak prove his mental fitness to practice at the time of application, and that he demonstrate that he has paid $1,410 in restitution with interest to Baird.
Contacts
Lori Brown, 614.461.0256, for the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
No current contact information for Lawrence John Novak.
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."