Confidence Not Inspired

The Ohio Supreme Court has suspended an attorney who had stipulated to misconduct but challenged the proposed sanction

In a ten-count October 2022 amended complaint, relator, disciplinary counsel, alleged that Shaaban violated multiple professional-conduct rules in eight client matters (seven foreclosure proceedings and one criminal case), shared legal fees with a nonlawyer, and failed to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation. Regarding the client matters, relator alleged, among other offenses, that Shaaban failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, failed to appear at multiple court hearings, failed to reasonably communicate with his clients, filed pleadings alleging defenses that he should have known did not apply to the facts of the case, and made false statements to courts and opposing counsel.

The parties entered into stipulations of fact, and Shaaban admitted that he committed all of the charged misconduct.

Harm in foreclosure matters

In four of the cases at issue in these counts, the clients’ loans were foreclosed and their homes were sold. After obtaining new counsel, two other clients reached agreements with their lenders.

The court

In this case, the board acknowledged that Shaaban has no disciplinary record, has accepted responsibility for his misconduct by stipulating to the charged rule violations, and was feeling “overwhelmed” at the time of his misconduct. According to his testimony, his feeling overwhelmed related to his lack of support staff and to a longstanding immigration issue. The board also acknowledged Shaaban’s testimony that he had reduced his caseload so that he would not miss so many notices and emails—though he explained that based on his income, case-management software was cost-prohibitive. But Shaaban also testified that at the time of his misconduct, the foreclosure cases he had received from Warsing constituted approximately 50 percent of his practice and that “the main reason Jim Warsing came into the picture was because that was extra money for [Warsing] doing most of the work.” For that reason, the board expressed concern that Shaaban would be willing to violate the professional-conduct rules when it would be profitable for him. Shaaban’s explanation that “Warsing has died, and a similar engagement will never happen” offered little to ameliorate the board’s concerns.

Although Shaaban now asserts that he has obtained practice management software and has attended seven hours of professional-conduct CLE since March 2022, there is no evidence in the record to support those claims. Furthermore, he has endeavored to disavow his stipulated misconduct in his brief objecting to the board’s recommended sanction by (1) denying that he has engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, (2) attempting to shift blame for Legeza’s arrest from himself to Legeza, and (3) portraying himself as having been fully cooperative in relator’s disciplinary investigation despite his stipulations to the contrary. Those actions do not inspire confidence that Shaaban has learned from his misconduct or that he is fully committed to conducting himself in an ethical and professional manner going forward.

Based on the foregoing, we overrule Shaaban’s objection to the recommended sanction. Having weighed Shaaban’s significant acts of misconduct, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and our applicable precedent, we agree with the board’s assessment that a two-year suspension, with one year conditionally stayed and an 18-month period of monitored probation, is the appropriate sanction in this case.

Oral argument linked here. (Mike Frisch)