Split Sanction For Theft
Dan Trevas has this summary of a bar discipline decision of the Ohio Supreme Court
Mahin Convicted of Felony Theft
In 2015, the Court suspended Mahin on an interim basis after receiving notice that he was convicted of fifth-degree felony theft for misappropriating funds from his former law firm. The Hamilton County Common Pleas Court sentenced him to one year of community control, and ordered him to perform 80 days of community service. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against him with the Board of Professional Conduct based on the conviction.
The board considered a “consent-to-discipline agreement” in which Mahin admitted that beginning in 2013 he took about $15,000 of law-firm funds for his own personal use. He also fraudulently endorsed a client’s name on a nearly $271 settlement check and then deposited the proceeds into his personal account. In addition, he admitted signing a settlement document stating he witnessed a client’s signature, when in reality the client died before the document was signed.
Mahin and the disciplinary counsel stipulated that Mahin’s conduct violated several rules including the prohibition on a lawyer committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty and trustworthiness, and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Completed Sentence, Other Factors Considered
The parties presented mitigating factors including that Mahin had no prior discipline, made full restitution to the firm and former client, fully cooperated with the disciplinary process, presented evidence of good character, and completed his felony sentence. The board also noted that Mahin voluntarily entered into a mental health contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (OLAP), and was diagnosed with a depressive disorder that his treating psychologist concluded contributed to the misconduct. The doctor indicated Mahin is ready to return to the ethical and professional practice of law.
Aggravating factors presented to the board included Mahin having a dishonest and selfish motive, engaging in a pattern of misconduct, and committing multiple offenses.
The Court adopted the parties’ proposed sanction of a two-year suspension with the second year stayed provided that Mahin continue psychological counseling, comply with his OLAP contract, submit to law-practice management counseling, serve two years of monitored probation upon his reinstatement, and not engage in further misconduct. The Court also granted Mahin credit for time served under his interim suspension.
Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Judith Ann Lanzinger, Sharon L. Kennedy, Judith L. French, and William M. O’Neill joined the opinion.
Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justice Terrence O’Donnell dissented, stating they would remand the case to the board to reconsider granting Mahin credit for time served.
2015-1641. Disciplinary Counsel v. Mahin, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3336.
(Mike Frisch)