Disciplinary Counsel v. Longino
128 Ohio St. 3d 426
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Longino, admitted to practice in 2007, faced a multi-count disciplinary complaint in 2009 alleging neglect, failure to inform clients, failed consent, improper notarization, misappropriation, and conflicts of interest.
- The complaint was amended in 2010 to add counts about mishandling client trust funds and two bankruptcies.
- A three-day panel hearing resulted in dismissal of some counts and findings of misconduct on others.
- The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline adopted the panel’s findings and urged permanent disbarment due to respondent’s extraordinary misconduct.
- The Supreme Court ultimately imposed permanent disbarment, noting the seriousness and pattern of violations, including misappropriation of client funds.
- Costs were taxed to Longino.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Misappropriation of client funds and trust-account handling | Disciplinary Counsel argues the facts show misappropriation and improper trust-account commingling. | Longino contends she did not misappropriate funds and that any shortfalls were due to mismanagement rather than intent. | Disbarment warranted; misappropriation and improper handling established. |
| Notarization and filing of poverty affidavits | Disciplinary Counsel contends affidavits were falsified or improperly notarized in multiple instances. | Longino may argue errors were inadvertent and not material to proceedings. | Violations of 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) established; serious misconduct. |
| Conflicts of interest in dual representation | Disciplinary Counsel asserts dual representation created a conflict of interest and was improper. | Longino argues clients consented to joint representation despite potential conflicts. | Conflict of interest violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.7; disbarment appropriate. |
| Notification, consent, and client-directed decisions regarding litigation | Disciplinary Counsel maintains Longino failed to inform and obtain consent, failing to act with diligence. | Longino claims some actions were warranted or miscommunications occurred. | Count findings support violation of 1.3, 1.4(a)(1)-(3), and related rules; disbarment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorain Cty. Bar Ass’n. v. Fernandez, 99 Ohio St.3d 426 (2003-Ohio-4078) (presumptive disbarment for misappropriation of client funds)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. France, 97 Ohio St.3d 240 (2002-Ohio-5945) (disiciplinary standards; aggravating factors considered)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Wherry, 87 Ohio St.3d 584 (2000-Ohio-?) (stated in the context of disciplinary sanctions)
- Dayton Bar Ass’n v. Gerren, 2004-Ohio-4110 (2004-Ohio-4110) (aggravating/mitigating factors in sanctioning)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 101 Ohio St.3d 27 (2003-Ohio-6623) (disbarment considerations for professional misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (guidance on applying aggravating/mitigating factors)