CourtListener opinion 11152728

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 97 Ohio St.3d 230.]

 OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GOLDEN.
 [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Golden, 2002-Ohio-5934.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct resulting directly from clinical depression—
 Indefinite suspension—Engaging in a pattern of neglect with respect to
 client matters—Failing to cooperate in ensuing disciplinary investigation.
 (No. 2002-0724—Submitted August 27, 2002—Decided November 13, 2002.)
 ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
 Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-47.
 __________________
 Per Curiam.
 {¶1} We must decide in this case how to appropriately sanction respondent,
Shelby Diane Golden of Lima, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0039787, who
violated a series of Disciplinary Rules while representing clients in eight different
cases, failed to cooperate with relator, Disciplinary Counsel, in the investigation of
her misconduct, and did not update her business address with the Office of Attorney
Registration as required. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline, after finding that respondent's debilitating clinical depression
contributed significantly to her misconduct, recommended a sanction less severe
than an indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio. We agree that
respondent's depression is a mitigating influence sufficient to warrant rejection of
the disbarment recommended by relator. However, misconduct of this magnitude
must be met with an indefinite suspension for the public's protection, and therefore
we find this sanction appropriate.
 {¶2} On February 6, 2001, relator filed the instant amended complaint and
charged respondent with ten counts of misconduct. A panel of the board heard the
cause and, based on the parties' stipulations and respondent's testimony, made the
 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

following findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to Counts I through
IX.1
 Misconduct
 {¶3} As to Count I, the evidence showed that in 1999, respondent accepted
a $250 retainer from a client, failed to perform any service for the client, and then
ignored the client's request that the money be returned. For this, the panel found
respondent in violation of DR 2-110(A)(3) (failing to promptly return unearned fees
upon withdrawing from employment) and 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted
legal matter). Because respondent did not respond to relator's letter of inquiry
concerning this client's grievance, the panel also found a violation of Gov.Bar R.
V(4)(G) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation).
 {¶4} With respect to Count II, the evidence showed that respondent agreed
in February 1997 to represent a couple in a collection action and accepted a $1,500
fee. During the next two and one-half years, respondent failed to file a complaint
in the action, yet she represented to her clients that the action was pending in court.
And in March 1999, respondent misrepresented to her clients that the matter would
be set for a scheduling conference before a Logan County common pleas court
judge. That judge later learned of respondent's actions and filed a grievance with
relator. The panel found that respondent's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4)
(engaging in fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation), 2-110(A)(3), 6-
101(A)(3), and 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry out a contract for professional
services). Because respondent again failed to respond to relator's letter of inquiry
concerning this grievance, the panel found another violation of Gov.Bar R.
V(4)(G).
 {¶5} As to Count III, the evidence showed that respondent represented a
client during her 1997 divorce and that those proceedings required respondent to

1. A tenth count of misconduct found by the panel was later discounted by the board.

 2
 January Term, 2002

file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to transfer funds from an IRA
to the client. Respondent never filed the QDRO but misled the client into believing
that she had. The panel found this conduct to violate DR 1-102(A)(4), (5)
(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and (6) (engaging
in conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law); 6-107(A)(3) [sic,
6-101(A)(3)]; and 7-101(A)(2).
 {¶6} With respect to Count IV, the evidence showed that respondent
represented another client in the dissolution of her marriage and that those
proceedings also required respondent to file a QDRO. Respondent again did not
file the QDRO and misrepresented to her client that she had. The panel determined
that this conduct also violated DR 6-101(A)(3) and 1-102(A)(4), (5), and (6).
Respondent's failure to reply to relator's letter of inquiry concerning this client's
grievance prompted the panel to find yet another violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
 {¶7} As to Count V, the panel found a violation of Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(D)
because respondent went to work as an assistant city prosecutor in November 1999
and did not update her office address with the Office of Attorney Registration until
at least October 2001. As a result, the clients from respondent's private practice,
some of whom needed their files, the return of unearned fees, and status reports,
had trouble contacting her about their cases.
 {¶8} With respect to Count VI, the evidence showed that while representing
another client subsequent to his 1995 divorce, respondent advised the client that he
owed only $60 in weekly support payments when, in fact, he owed $100 per week
pursuant to a judgment entry. Respondent misrepresented the amount of support
ultimately ordered because she thought she had made a mistake in agreeing to a
higher amount in an earlier court order. As a result, the client accumulated
arrearages during 1996 through 1999 in his spousal support account with the Child
Support Enforcement Agency. The client received notices from the agency

 3
 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

concerning the arrearages, which he took to respondent, and she promised to take
care of the problem.
 {¶9} In 1998, respondent's client wanted to buy a new house. To assist him,
respondent altered a copy of the judgment entry requiring the client's $100 weekly
support payment to reflect that he owed only $60 per week. Respondent gave the
altered copy to the client for his use in obtaining a loan, and his loan was approved.
 {¶10} Also in 1998, respondent asked this client to start sending his support
payments to her so that she could make sure the Child Enforcement Support Agency
received them. For the next several months, respondent deposited these checks into
her client trust account and then made support payments from the same account,
partially making up the difference between what her client had paid her for this
purpose and the amount actually owed. But eventually, the accumulated arrearages
in her client's account caused the agency to garnish the client's monthly Social
Security checks. The client bounced some checks as a result.
 {¶11} Then, from February 1999 through March 2000, respondent paid
directly into the client's checking account amounts representing the difference
between the client's support payments and the amount actually owed. Respondent
misrepresented to the client that the Child Support Enforcement Agency was
making these payments. In July 1999, the agency notified respondent's client that
his account was over $3,700 in arrears. Respondent also paid this overdue amount.
 {¶12} The panel concluded from respondent's misrepresentations and
commingling in connection with Count VI that she had violated DR 1-102(A)(4)
and (5), 5-103(B) (advancing financial assistance to a client), 7-101(A)(3) (causing
client damage or prejudice), 7-102(A)(3) (concealing that which an attorney is
required by law to reveal), and 9-102 (failing to maintain client funds in an
identifiable bank account).

 4
 January Term, 2002

 {¶13} As to Count VII, the panel found a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3)
because respondent was hired in 1998 to administer a client's estate but did not
timely conclude the process.
 {¶14} With respect to Count VIII, the evidence showed that while
representing a trustee in November 1999, respondent failed to timely file an
accounting of the trust assets and thereafter did not reply to the court's or her
client's inquiries about the overdue accounting. In February 2000, the trustee
terminated respondent's employment, but respondent did not promptly turn the
client's file over to the trustee's new attorney. The panel concluded that respondent
had thereby violated DR 2-110(A)(2) (withdrawal from employment without
reasonable steps to return client's papers and other property), and 6-101(A)(3).
 {¶15} As to Count IX, the evidence showed that in representing another
client in her 1996 divorce, respondent again was required to file a QDRO so that
the client could receive a portion of her former husband's 401(k) pension.
Respondent did not file the QDRO during 1996, 1997, or 1998.
 {¶16} When her client was finally able to reach respondent and complain
that she was not receiving any money from the QDRO, respondent falsely told the
client that the QDRO had been filed. Respondent also told the client that she had
had to sue the administrator of the 401(k) plan and that various proceedings were
underway. To cover these untruths, respondent made 22 monthly payments to the
client in three years, all the while explaining that the proceeds were from the
pending litigation. In September 2000, the client discovered that respondent had
not filed any suit against the administrator and that the payments she had been
receiving were not from the administrator or any court. Respondent, who by that
time had paid her client over $9,000, stopped making these payments.
 {¶17} The panel found that respondent's conduct in connection with Count
IX violated DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5); 5-103(B); 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3); and 7-

 5
 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

102(A)(3). Because respondent had also failed to respond to notice of this client's
grievance, the panel further found a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G).
 Recommendation
 {¶18} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel
considered the factors commonly offered to mitigate the impact of an attorney's
misconduct, including that respondent had conceded the egregious effect of her
infractions and had already made restitution to her clients. Respondent also
established that she had no prior history of professional discipline. In addition, the
panel noted that while respondent had frequently failed to respond to relator's initial
investigative inquiries, she retained an attorney and cooperated fully once relator
had filed its complaint.
 {¶19} But by far the most compelling evidence for the panel was that of
respondent's psychological and emotional decline during the events at bar. In fact,
after hearing respondent's explanation of her overwhelming personal and
professional misfortunes, the panel sua sponte suggested a psychiatric evaluation,
and respondent and relator agreed to this assessment. The panel reviewed the
comprehensive psychiatric report that respondent submitted and specifically found
that her clinical depression was the direct cause of the acts leading to this complaint.
Panel members also noted that while respondent had acted dishonestly, these acts
were not the result of conventional self-interest, but rather manifested respondent's
ill-conceived efforts to help her clients and fix problems with which she could no
longer cope.
 {¶20} Based on these considerations, the panel decided against disbarment
and recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law commencing
January 1, 2001, the date on which respondent voluntarily withdrew herself from
practice. The panel further recommended that the last six months of this period be
suspended, that respondent be placed on probation for these six months, and that a
monitoring attorney be appointed pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9)(B) for respondent

 6
 January Term, 2002

during her probation. The board adopted the panel's findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and recommended sanction with respect to Counts I through IX.
 Sanction Upon Review
 {¶21} Upon review, we agree that respondent committed the disciplinary
violations as found by the board in these nine counts of misconduct. Moreover,
based on the stipulations, respondent's testimony, and relator's objections to the
board's report, we further find that respondent violated DR 7-101(A)(2) in
connection with Counts I, IV, and VII; DR 1-102(A)(4) in connection with Count
VII; and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) in connection with Count III.
 {¶22} We also accept as mitigating the factors identified by the board. See
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio St.3d 490, 2002-Ohio-2490, 769 N.E.2d
816, ¶19, and Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Stidham (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 455, 463, 721
N.E.2d 977 (mitigation evidence may consist of an attorney's mental or emotional
illness as well as the factors enumerated in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline). But these factors notwithstanding,
our decision must still account for respondent's having breached her duty to her
clients, the public, and the profession so many times and for so many years.
Accordingly, we have decided to impose an indefinite suspension from the practice
of law.
 {¶23} When attorneys engage in a pattern of neglect and fail to cooperate
in an ensuing disciplinary investigation, the misconduct ordinarily warrants an
indefinite suspension. Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 211, 212,
718 N.E.2d 1271; Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 219,
221, 718 N.E.2d 1277; Warren Cty. Bar Assn. v. Lieser (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 488,
490, 683 N.E.2d 1148. Moreover, when these infractions are coupled with
dishonesty in any form, an indefinite suspension is all but guaranteed. On the other
hand, when misconduct permeates a practice in the way it has in this case,

 7
 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

disbarment is often the only sanction available for preserving the public confidence
in the judicial system. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Glatki (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 381,
726 N.E.2d 993.
 {¶24} Attorneys are obligated to secure medical or other assistance they
need before any client suffers from the attorney's professional incompetence,
whatever the source. But having said this, we also realize that the practice of law
can be overwhelming. Thus, when an attorney's misconduct results directly from
clinical depression as it does here, we have tempered our disposition to see whether
the attorney is able, with the help of appropriate medical care, to merit the public's
confidence again. Stidham, 87 Ohio St.3d 455, 464, 721 N.E.2d 977.
 {¶25} We consider respondent a good risk for this level of lenience.
Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio
indefinitely. During such suspension, respondent shall seek and continue in
professional psychiatric care for the purpose of establishing her restored
professional competence. Respondent's reinstatement shall be conditioned on
medical proof of competence to return to the practice of law in addition to the
requirements established in Gov.Bar R. V(10). Costs are taxed to respondent.
 Judgment accordingly.

 MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
 __________________
 Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
 Jeffrey V. Hawkins, for respondent.
 __________________

 8