Ohio Hears Discipline Matter

Up for argument today before the Ohio Supreme Court

Disciplinary Counsel v. Beverly J. Corner, Case No. 2019-0215
Franklin County

The Ohio Supreme Court suspended Columbus attorney Beverly J. Corner in February 2016. The Board of Professional Conduct recommends that Corner be sanctioned again for false statements made during a disciplinary investigation into a real estate matter she handled while suspended.

In December 2017, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a four-count complaint alleging that Corner violated several rules governing attorney conduct while under suspension. However, the board dismissed three charges that dealt with Corner’s activities during that time – specifically, statements she made in her application for reinstatement to practice law, work she did for an attorney, and assistance she gave her stepmother in a custody matter.

For the misconduct related to the real estate transaction, the board recommends a one-year suspension, fully stayed, with conditions. The disciplinary counsel objects to the stayed suspension and to the dismissal of one of the counts. The office argues for an actual suspension.

Attorney Misstates CLE Hours in Reinstatement Application
As part of Corner’s February 2016 suspension, she was required to take a certain number of continuing legal education (CLE) courses before she could request to be reinstated to the practice of law. In a August 2017 reinstatement application to the Supreme Court, Corner stated that she had complied with the education requirements. However, she had completed only a fraction of the hours the Court had ordered.

The board panel that conducted Corner’s disciplinary hearing concluded that the attorney didn’t knowingly make false statements to the Court and her “application errors were a result of negligence, sloppiness, carelessness, and inattention.” The board dismissed the allegation.

During Suspension, Corner Works with Attorney, Assists Stepmother
Before Corner’s February 2016 suspension, her stepmother asked her to assist in the purchase of a house from Joe McDaniels. During the process, it was discovered that McDaniels’ deceased wife’s name needed to be removed from the property deed before the purchase could occur. In the midst of working on the transfer, Corner was suspended from practicing law. At a minimum, while suspended, Corner obtained and filed documents with public offices and paid related fees, the board’s report notes.

In November 2016, the disciplinary counsel received an unsigned grievance believed to be from McDaniels, alleging that Corner was still practicing law. The grievance included documents related to the property sale. When the disciplinary counsel’s office contacted Corner, she denied paying the filing fees at the recorder’s office and the probate court. She said she had been hired by an “entity” to file documents and do notary work and didn’t share that the “entity” was her stepmother.

The disciplinary counsel determined in March 2017 that the grievance wasn’t from McDaniels. The panel believed the office should have tried to contact the grievant to determine whether the complaint was valid. The board determined, though, that Corner violated two attorney conduct rules prohibiting false statements to disciplinary authorities and knowingly failing to respond to disciplinary inquiries.

Also after her suspension, Corner worked for an attorney friend for a year beginning in March 2016. The friend didn’t register Corner’s employment with the Supreme Court, and Corner didn’t ensure that the friend had contacted the Court. These steps were both requirements of Corner’s suspension. In dismissing the count, though, the board stated that the registration obligation rests with the hiring attorney and that Corner had no direct contact with clients.

The board also dismissed a count involving the help Corner provided to her stepmother with a custody matter.

Board Rejects Need for Actual Suspension
When the board considers a sanction to recommend to the Court, it reviews aggravating circumstances that could increase the penalty and mitigating factors that could lead to a lesser sanction. The board stated that Corner has prior discipline and she hasn’t acknowledged her misconduct related to the real estate transaction. The board also concluded that she had no dishonest or selfish motive.

Pointing out that Corner is still under suspension from her first suspension, the board’s report notes that she has been suspended now for more than three years.

“[W]e feel this case has caused her to serve a longer suspension than originally dictated by her first suspension, and as such she has been punished for this case,” the report states.

The board recommends a one-year suspension, to begin when she is reinstated from her first suspension. The suspension will be stayed if she commits no further misconduct and passes the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination.

Disciplinary Counsel Raises Concerns about Board’s Conclusions
The disciplinary counsel objects to the board’s dismissal of the misconduct charge related to Corner’s reporting requirements while she was suspended and asks the Court to reconsider that charge. The Court’s suspension order stated that before working with an attorney, Corner must verify that the attorney complies with specific registration requirements, and Corner must not handle client funds or property and must refrain from client contact.

During the disciplinary process, Corner admitted that neither she nor the attorney for whom she worked took the steps required by the Court. She acknowledged that she violated the Court’s order multiple times, the office notes. Corner testified that she didn’t know who had to verify the relationship, didn’t know where to obtain the registration documentation, and was working as a “glorified secretary” for the attorney.

“[Corner] cannot be excused from following a direct order of this court or any other court because she ‘didn’t know,’ particularly when she failed to make any reasonable inquiry to determine her obligations,” the office’s objections state. “[Corner’s] knowing failure to comply with a court order violates Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c).”

Disciplinary Counsel Also Argues for Actual Suspension
The disciplinary counsel also maintains that Corner’s other misconduct alone calls for an actual suspension. The office describes the board’s rationale for a stayed suspension as “seriously flawed,” setting “a dangerous precedent for future disciplinary cases.”

The office notes it is required to review every grievance received regardless of whether the grievance is signed or unsigned, such as the one in this matter. When the board concludes that an attorney’s lies are “understandable,” it’s “tantamount to giving respondents carte blanche permission to either refuse to cooperate or to provide false and misleading information during the course of a disciplinary investigation simply because they believe the allegations are meritless,” the office states.

The disciplinary counsel adds that Corner’s first suspension is still ongoing primarily because of her own choices, including not applying for reinstatement as soon as she could, not completing the Court-mandated CLE courses necessary for her reinstatement, and her subsequent misconduct. The office recommends a two-year suspension with one year stayed with conditions.

Attorney Maintains Rule Doesn’t Apply to Her Actions
Rule 3.4(c) of the Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct states, “A lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal.” Corner asserts that the rule applies to a lawyer representing a client during pretrial, trial, or ongoing litigation or when a lawyer participates as a party or a witness. In her view, the rule doesn’t apply to her conduct during her current suspension.

She asks the Court to the adopt the board’s conclusions and proposed sanction.

– Kathleen Maloney

(Mike Frisch)