Suspended And Disbarred In Ohio

Bret Crow of the Ohio Supreme Court web page has this report on two bar discipline matters decided today.

In separate  disciplinary cases announced today, the Ohio Supreme Court disbarred one  northeast Ohio attorney and suspended another from the practice of law.

• The Supreme  Court disbarred Warren attorney Kenneth N.  Shaw, finding that he represented clients while suspended and paid himself  fees in probate actions without first receiving court approval.
• The Supreme  Court suspended Cleveland attorney David  A. Streeter Jr. for two years with 18 months stayed on conditions for  misappropriating $230,000, engaging in a Ponzi-like scheme, and not promptly  owning up to his misconduct.

In Disciplinary Counsel v. Shaw, the  court found that Shaw failed to  advise four clients that he had been suspended from the practice of law and  that in two estate matters he did not receive the required court approval – pursuant  to local probate rules – before paying himself attorney fees. The court’s per  curiam (not assigned to a specific justice) decision rejected the recommended  sanction of an indefinite suspension from the Board of Commissioners on  Grievances and Discipline. The Supreme Court noted in its decision that “the  circumstances here require Shaw’s permanent disbarment.”

The  Supreme Court adopted the board’s findings regarding aggravating factors about  prior disciplinary actions, a pattern of misconduct, that “Shaw’s actions  caused harm to vulnerable clients,” and that “Shaw acted with a dishonest and  selfish motive.” However, the Supreme Court added “factors that Shaw committed  multiple offenses and failed to make restitution” in the probate matters.

Noting that  disbarment is the typical sanction imposed for attorneys who continue to  practice law while under suspension, the court found that Shaw’s cooperation in  the investigation as a “lone mitigating factor does not justify a departure  from the presumption in favor of disbarment.”

The  court also differentiated Shaw’s case from the indefinite suspension sanctions  imposed in similar cases because Shaw “was  previously disciplined for serious misconduct.”

In Disciplinary Counsel v. Streeter, the  court again imposed a more severe sanction than recommended by the board, which  did not include an actual suspension from the practice of law. In doing so, the  court sustained an objection by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

The  Disciplinary Counsel alleged that Streeter misappropriated more than $230,000 in funds from real estate closings that he  conducted in the operation of his business, Statewide Title Agency, Ltd., to  cover personal and business expenses. In a per curiam opinion, the court  distinguished Streeter’s misconduct from that of another attorney who received  a fully stayed suspension on the ground that Streeter “took affirmative action  to cover up his theft by repaying the money with more misappropriated money  rather than with his own funds.” The other attorney, in contrast, disclosed the  full extent of his misappropriation in response to relator’s first letter of  inquiry.

The  Supreme Court noted that Streeter misappropriated more than three times the  amount that the other attorney had taken and that “he continues to minimize the  extent of his theft by arguing that his Ponzi-like scheme to repay the funds  resulted in a net misappropriation of just $75,001.99.”

In addition, the Supreme Court emphasized that “Streeter’s misconduct,  in contrast, is the result of a crisis that he could have avoided, or at the  very least minimized, with the exercise of due diligence,” the opinion states.  “He testified that when he and his business partner decided to amicably  dissolve their relationship, he assumed full ownership of Statewide Title, its  assets, and its liabilities, without making any inquiry into the financial  condition of the business. He admitted that he did not understand the  accounting side of the business, and that he did not know how to run a  business. Streeter viewed sole ownership of Statewide as an opportunity to  advance his career and proceeded blindly, without conducting any of the due  diligence that one would expect of someone – especially an attorney – entering  into a significant business transaction.”

2013-0923. Disciplinary Counsel  v. Shaw, Slip  Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1025.

2013-0581. Disciplinary Counsel v. Streeter, Slip  Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1051.

View oral argument video of this case.

(Mike Frisch)