Disciplinary Counsel v. Becker, 140 Ohio St. 3d 299

Background

Stephen L. Becker, an Ohio attorney admitted in 1975, was accused of long-term misappropriation of fiduciary and client funds largely to fund gambling.
As guardian of his developmentally disabled nephew Christopher (appointed 1983; reappointed 1994), Becker concealed loans and withdrawals, including a $32,152.50 self-advance for gambling and a $30,800 improper loan to his daughter; he failed to file required accounts and did not timely transmit funds when guardianship ended.
Becker held a joint account with his elderly aunt Eileen Binkley (power of attorney and beneficiary in her will) and repeatedly deposited and withdrew her funds, writing large checks to casinos and making undisclosed distributions to himself during administration of her estate.
As Binkley’s executor, Becker made substantial self-distributions, filed false and incomplete estate inventory and final account statements, and admitted at hearing he had gambled away estate funds.
Becker also diverted various client and firm fees (including a $24,920.48 settlement for a client) into accounts he controlled, failed to deposit funds into IOLTA as required, and used other clients’ fees to cover prior diversions. He admitted theft from his aunt when confronted by colleagues.
The Board found multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules and Rules of Professional Conduct, numerous aggravating factors (dishonest motive, pattern, multiple offenses, vulnerable victims, failure to make full restitution), one mitigating factor (no prior discipline), and recommended permanent disbarment; the Supreme Court adopted the recommendation and disbarred Becker.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Becker misappropriated guardianship funds and failed to account for them	Becker converted Christopher’s funds, made undisclosed loans/withdrawals, and filed false accounts	Becker characterized some transfers as "loans" and disputed labels but admitted some misuse	Court held Becker knowingly misappropriated guardianship funds and violated disciplinary rules
Whether Becker converted and misused funds from a joint account and estate of Binkley	Becker used the joint account and estate funds for personal gambling and improper self‑distributions, and filed false estate accounts	Becker acknowledged gambling but disputed extent or characterization; claimed attempts to address addiction	Court held Becker converted Binkley’s funds, filed false inventory/accounts, and violated professional conduct rules
Whether Becker diverted client and firm funds and failed to use IOLTA accounts	Becker deposited settlement/client payments into accounts he controlled, concealed fees from his firm, and misapplied funds	Becker claimed some transfers were mistakes or "loans" and argued character/mitigation	Court held Becker violated rules governing client property, IOLTA, and honesty to employer
Appropriate sanction for extensive, multi‑year fiduciary breaches caused by gambling addiction	Disciplinary counsel urged disbarment given misappropriation, vulnerable victims, pattern of misconduct, and limited mitigation	Becker sought mitigation based on lack of prior discipline and asserted steps to address addiction	Court held disbarment appropriate given deliberate conversion, multiple aggravating factors, insufficient mitigation, and need to protect public

Key Cases Cited

Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (sanctioning guidance and factors in discipline)
Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Malley, 137 Ohio St.3d 161 (use of aggravating/mitigating factors in sanctioning)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (procedure for weighing factors in discipline)
Disciplinary Counsel v. McCord, 121 Ohio St.3d 497 (presumption of fitness absent proof of incapacity)
Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Williams, 137 Ohio St.3d 112 (standards for gambling/ addiction mitigation)
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Lockshin, 125 Ohio St.3d 529 (primary purpose of discipline is public protection)
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock, 82 Ohio St.3d 98 (conversion of client funds warrants disbarment)
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Churilla, 78 Ohio St.3d 348 (conversion followed by disbarment)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Yajko, 77 Ohio St.3d 385 (self‑reporting and acceptance of responsibility in mitigation)
Akron Bar Assn. v. Smithern, 125 Ohio St.3d 72 (addiction mitigation requires treatment and demonstrated recovery)