Disciplinary Counsel v. Leksan
136 Ohio St. 3d 85
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Respondent Thomas J. Leksan, admitted to practice in 1982, faced a certified complaint alleging misappropriation of client funds and mismanagement of his client-trust account in Ohio.
- The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline adopted stipulations of fact, misconduct, aggravating and mitigating factors, and proposed a two-year suspension subject to conditions.
- The hearing panel rejected the stipulated two-year sanction and recommended indefinite suspension with reinstatement conditioned on compliance with specific requirements.
- The board adopted the panel’s findings and recommended the same indefinite suspension with the parties’ reinstatement conditions.
- Stipulated facts showed pervasive client-trust violations since 2009, including failure to maintain ledgers, failure to reconcile, improper withdrawals, and misappropriation across multiple clients and matters (Chasteen, Hedrick, Carnine, etc.).
- The court ultimately adopted the board’s findings and indefinitely suspended Leksan, conditioning reinstatement on CLE, fund-management systems, and OLAP/compliance obligations, with costs taxed to Leksan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indefinite suspension is warranted for misappropriation of client funds | Leksan's misconduct involved serious misappropriation and records failures. | Mitigating factors, including treatment for addictions and good conduct, support a lesser sanction. | Indefinite suspension warranted |
| Whether prior disbarment is presumptively required for misappropriation | Misappropriation typically calls for disbarment as presumptive sanction. | Significant mitigating circumstances justify an indefinite suspension instead. | Indefinite suspension accepted given mitigating factors |
| Are reinstatement conditions appropriate to ensure future compliance | Reinstatement should be conditioned to protect clients and the public. | Conditions proposed by parties are reasonable and tailored to treatment and management improvements. | Reinstatement conditioned on specified compliance measures |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (aggravating factors and sanctions framework for misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (consideration of aggravating/mitigating factors in sanctioning)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. King, 132 Ohio St.3d 501 (2012-Ohio-873) (two-year suspension in a misappropriation and record-keeping case)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Crosby, 124 Ohio St.3d 226 (2009-Ohio-6763) (misuse of client funds and recordkeeping leading to suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Rothermel, 104 Ohio St.3d 413 (2004-Ohio-6559) (discusses insubstantial misappropriation with possible indefinite suspension)