Discipilnary Counsel v. Ricketts
128 Ohio St. 3d 271
| Ohio | 2010Background
- Respondent, a 1986 Ohio attorney, represented a company during liquidation led by the wife shareholder.
- In 2001, the company executed mortgages on unencumbered land to four creditors, allegedly to influence creditor behavior; at least one creditor had no lending relationship with the company.
- Mortgages were signed by the wife on behalf of the company and later recorded; Ag Credit had no loan with the company and learned of the mortgages years later.
- In 2002 the company’s assets were liquidated; in 2007, during a building loan attempt, Ag Credit refused to release its mortgage and respondent arranged a release without Adequate notice to Ag Credit.
- Ag Credit complained; boards found misconduct involving deceit; respondent was suspended for six months with stay, conditioned on no further violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did respondent violate DR 1-102(A)(4)? | Discipline for misrepresentation intended to mislead creditors. | Good-faith argument supports enforceability of mortgages. | Yes, DR 1-102(A)(4) violated. |
| Did respondent’s conduct qualify as misrepresentation or deceit under DR 1-102(A)(4)? | Mortgages created a false appearance of debt to influence creditors. | Mortgages could be legally defensible; good-faith belief. | Misrepresentation found; violation upheld. |
| Did the release of Ag Credit's mortgage violate Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) and (h)? | Release deceptive and intended to mislead creditors and the recorder. | Action taken in response to urgent client needs and in good faith. | Yes, the release violated 8.4(c) and (h). |
| Does Rust and the good-faith argument exception permit this conduct to go unsanctioned under Prof.Cond.R. 3.1/DR 7-102(A)(2)? | Good-faith argument should shield from discipline. | Rust does not excuse misrepresentation; not applicable here. | No, not a full shield; conduct still sanctionable. |
| What sanction is appropriate given mitigating and aggravating factors? | Six-month suspension warranted; board recommended stay with conditions. | Only a public reprimand or lesser sanction; stay should cover all sanction if no further violations. | Six-month suspension with stay; costs taxed; stay conditioned on no further violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Rust, 124 Ohio St.3d 305 (2010-Ohio-170) (good-faith argument defense; not a blanket shield for misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Potter, 126 Ohio St.3d 50 (2010-Ohio-2521) (8.4(c) sanctioning framework; aggravating/mitigating factors)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Rohrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 65 (2009-Ohio-5930) (emphasizes mitigating factors in sanctioning)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Carroll, 106 Ohio St.3d 84 (2005-Ohio-3805) (DR 1-102(A)(4) violations typically lead to suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Fowerbaugh, 74 Ohio St.3d 187 (1995) (sanction standards for misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Greene, 74 Ohio St.3d 13 (1995) (sanctions framework and misconduct considerations)