Disciplinary Counsel v. Squire
958 N.E.2d 914
Ohio2011Background
- Respondent Percy Squire, Ohio attorney since 1981, faced a five-count disciplinary proceeding starting from a $25,000 flat-fee dispute with client Mike Riley.
- Relator filed a second amended complaint with multiple Rule violations based on misappropriation, mismanagement of client funds, and conflicts of interest.
- Board panel found 12 violations, dismissed 13, and recommended a two-year suspension with one year stayed.
- Relator objected to count three (the Wagner loan and Lay funds) and the requested sanction; the court sustained objections in part and indefinitely suspended Squire.
- Counts addressed include: improper handling of client funds (Count One and Count Three), loans/transactions with clients (Count Two and Count Five), and the Wallace matter (Count Four).
- The court ultimately imposed an indefinite license suspension, with conditions for restitution and accounting if reinstatement is sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Squire misappropriated client funds in Count Three through the Lay insurance proceeds. | Relator contends Squire converted Lay funds for personal use. | Squire asserts lack of clear evidence of misappropriation or defenses regarding funding. | Yes; misappropriation established for insurance proceeds; indefinite suspension affirmed. |
| Whether Squire engaged in improper business transactions with clients without proper disclosure or independent counsel (Count Five). | Relator claims Squire failed to advise independent counsel or obtain written consent. | Squire argues no violation given lack of clear client-conflicts details. | Yes; Count Five sustained for violation of 1.8(a) and 8.4(h) in part; count dismissed otherwise. |
| Whether Squire’s handling of the Lay defense fund and Lay insurance proceeds violated records-keeping and conflict-of-interest rules (Count Three, Lay matter). | Relator asserts inadequate records and improper disbursements. | Squire maintains expenditures were supported by Lay and Smalls’ approval. | Yes for the insurance proceeds (8.4(c)); no finding of misappropriation for the defense fund due to insufficient proof of unauthorized use. |
| Whether the sanction of indefinite suspension is appropriate given the misconduct spanning multiple years. | Disciplinary Counsel argues disbarment or indefinite suspension warranted. | Squire challenges dissimilarity to prior cases and suggests a stayed suspension. | Indefinite suspension with conditions; the dissent favored a two-year suspension with stay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crosby, Disciplinary Counsel v., 124 Ohio St.3d 226 (2009-Ohio-6763) (court sanctioned misappropriation with term suspensions and conditions)
- Mishler, Cleveland Bar Assn. v., 118 Ohio St.3d 109 (2008-Ohio-1810) (two-year suspension with partial stay and restitution requirements for misappropriation-related misconduct)
- Harris, Cleveland Bar Assn. v., 96 Ohio St.3d 138 (2002-Ohio-2988) (indefinite suspension with monitoring for misconduct involving client funds)
- Churilla, Disciplinary Counsel v., 78 Ohio St.3d 348 (1997-Ohio-?) (presumptive disbarment for misappropriation and related misconduct (referenced in discussion))