Disciplinary Counsel v. Flowers
139 Ohio St. 3d 338
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Flowers, admitted to Ohio bar in 2001, was charged with misconduct in 2013 for signing client’s name to five affidavits with permission and notarizing the signatures.
- The misconduct occurred on two separate occasions with her client’s authorization.
- Relator filed a complaint and the parties entered a consent-to-discipline agreement under BCGD Proc.Reg. 11.
- Flowers stipulated to facts and violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and 8.4(h).
- Mitigating factors: no prior disciplinary record and cooperative demeanor; no aggravating factors.
- The parties requested a public reprimand; the panel and board recommended adoption of the agreement; costs were taxed against Flowers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Flowers violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d). | Flowers engaged in actions prejudicial to justice by signing and notarizing client affidavits. | Consent-to-discipline acknowledged misconduct but disputed severity; actions were with client permission and not intended to defraud. | Yes; violations found and public reprimand warranted. |
| Whether Flowers violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). | Notarizing signatures and signing on client affidavits reflected adversely on fitness to practice. | No aggravating factors and mitigating cooperation reduce sanction impact; highly analogous to precedent. | Yes; violations established and sanction appropriate. |
| Whether a public reprimand is appropriate given the consent-to-discipline and mitigating factors. | Public reprimand aligns with precedent for similar notarial misconduct. | Mitigating factors justify lesser sanction, but consent limits deviation. | Public reprimand affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Mezacapa, 101 Ohio St.3d 156 (2004-Ohio-302) (public reprimand appropriate for signing client’s name with permission and notarizing)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Thomas, 93 Ohio St.3d 402 (2001) (public reprimand for similar notarization conduct)
- Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Melnick, 107 Ohio St.3d 240 (2005-Ohio-6265) (public reprimand where notarization did not comply with jurat representation)