Disciplinary Counsel v. Little (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 6871
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Shawn Andrea Little, an Ohio lawyer admitted in 1991, was charged in a 25‑count complaint with misappropriating client settlement funds and failing to maintain required trust-account records.
- From 2007–2014 Little misappropriated $363,444.30 across 23 client matters, typically depositing settlements into her IOLTA, paying client shares and fees, but wrongfully withholding funds meant for lienholders or co‑counsel.
- Representative matters: in one case she retained $4,838.83 instead of paying medical liens; in another she diverted $201,048.43 intended for a lien and later used part of those funds to pay an unrelated lien.
- In one large settlement she misappropriated $500 and commingled client funds by failing to timely withdraw earned fees; overall she used stolen funds for personal and office expenses.
- Little self‑reported in September 2014 and began repayments but still owed $104,989.65 at the time of stipulation; she also failed to maintain required client ledgers for the trust account.
- The Board found multiple violations of the Ohio Professional Conduct Rules (including misappropriation, commingling, failure to maintain ledgers, and conduct reflecting adversely on fitness), and recommended permanent disbarment; the Supreme Court adopted the recommendation and permanently disbarred Little.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Little misappropriated client funds | Disciplinary Counsel: Little intentionally withheld and used client settlement funds for personal/other‑case expenses across multiple matters | Little stipulated to misconduct but emphasized cooperation and partial restitution | Held: Yes—found 23 violations of Prof.Cond.R.1.15(d) and 8.4(c) for misappropriation |
| Whether Little commingled client and lawyer funds & failed to maintain records | Counsel: Little commingled funds and failed to keep required client ledgers, impeding accounting | Little admitted failures and ledger deficiencies, citing cooperation | Held: Yes—one violation of Prof.Cond.R.1.15(a) (commingling) and one of Prof.Cond.R.1.15(a)(2) (failure to maintain ledgers) |
| Appropriate disciplinary sanction | Counsel: Misappropriation merits disbarment, especially given amount/duration and incomplete restitution | Little pointed to mitigation (no prior discipline, cooperation, self‑reporting, partial repayment) | Held: Permanent disbarment justified—misappropriation presumptively warrants disbarment; mitigation insufficient given scope, duration, and incomplete restitution |
| Whether additional misconduct standard applies (fitness) | Counsel: Pattern and duration warrant finding conduct reflecting adversely on fitness | Little did not successfully rebut board’s characterization of testimony and pattern | Held: Yes—separate violation of Prof.Cond.R.8.4(h) warranted due to egregious scope and duration |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Becker, 17 N.E.3d 583 (Ohio 2014) (disbarment where attorney misappropriated funds over extended period, tied to gambling addiction)
- Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Roland, 63 N.E.3d 1200 (Ohio 2016) (disbarment for elaborate concealment and misuse of client funds over multiple years)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Leksan, 990 N.E.2d 591 (Ohio 2013) (misappropriation makes disbarment presumptive absent substantial mitigation)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Belock, 694 N.E.2d 897 (Ohio 1998) (deliberate misappropriation warrants the strictest discipline to maintain public confidence)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 997 N.E.2d 500 (Ohio 2013) (pattern of trust‑account violations supports finding of conduct reflecting adversely on fitness)