Disciplinary Counsel v. Zapor
939 N.E.2d 1230
Ohio2010Background
- Respondent Jeffery A. Zapor, admitted 2005, served as guardian for a ward with minimal assets.
- Respondent allegedly misappropriated over $20,000 from the ward’s account for personal expenses.
- Two accountings to the court falsely stated deposit of Social Security checks and no excess withdrawals.
- Respondent pled guilty to a fifth-degree felony theft; sentenced to community control, fines, and restitution.
- Disciplinary Counsel filed the case; panel recommended indefinite suspension and no credit for interim suspension.
- Court imposed indefinite suspension with reinstatement conditions and noted OLAP compliance issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is misappropriation of a ward’s funds misconduct warranting indefinite suspension? | Zapor engaged in dishonesty and illegal activity undermining trust and integrity. | Respondent admits misconduct and cooperated; mitigating factors may apply. | Indefinite suspension warranted with reinstatement conditions. |
| Do mitigating factors justify indefinite suspension instead of disbarment? | Mitigation is limited; misappropriation warrants severe sanction. | Factors like restitution, lack of prior discipline, cooperation support mitigation. | Mitigation present but not enough to avoid indefinite suspension; conditions for reinstatement set. |
| Should any credit be given for the interim felony suspension? | Credit not warranted due to stipulated misconduct contemporaneous with frailties. | Some treatment and remorse could weigh in favor of credit. | No credit for interim suspension. |
| What conditions must be satisfied to petition for reinstatement? | Strict performance of disciplinary and treatment obligations is needed. | Respondent must show fitness to practice and control of underlying issues. | Approved reinstatement conditions: extend OLAP, comply with OLAP terms, ongoing treatment, no further violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (discretion in selecting appropriate sanction in bar discipline)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hunter, 106 Ohio St.3d 418 (2005-Ohio-5411) (disbarment presumptive for misappropriation; mitigating factors may apply)
- Columbus Bar Assn. v. Thomas, 124 Ohio St.3d 498 (2010-Ohio-604) (mitigation based on financial necessity; hardship in reinstatement)
- Dayton Bar Assn. v. Schram, 122 Ohio St.3d 8 (2009-Ohio-1931) (consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors in sanctions)
- Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Poole, 120 Ohio St.3d 361 (2008-Ohio-6203) (scope of factors and conditions for reinstatement)