Lake County Bar Association v. Davies
144 Ohio St. 3d 558
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Respondent David H. Davies, an Ohio attorney since 1973, was charged in a three-count disciplinary complaint by the Lake County Bar Association alleging multiple ethics violations arising from three client matters.
- Count One (Scott): Davies settled a personal-injury case, forged the clients’ endorsements on a $14,500 check, deposited funds into his client trust account, took fees, and never distributed proceeds to the Scotts; he later faced a $100,000 default judgment in malpractice litigation by the Scotts.
- Count Two (Babcock): In a dental-malpractice action, Davies repeatedly failed to timely file required expert materials, failed to oppose dispositive motions, lost at trial and on appeal, and did not cooperate with the ensuing disciplinary investigation.
- Count Three (Griffith estate): Davies claimed a $50,000 debt secured by estate real estate, probated the estate while being its largest creditor without disclosure or written consent, collected the $50,000 improperly, failed to protect or notify a potential heir, and was ordered to repay the estate plus fees but did not satisfy the judgment.
- The board found numerous violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct (including misappropriation, dishonesty, conflicts of interest, incompetence, excessive fees, and failure to cooperate) and identified multiple aggravating factors; Davies stipulated to the facts but attributed misconduct in part to long‑undiagnosed depression.
- The board recommended permanent disbarment; the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the board’s findings and permanently disbarred Davies, rejecting his mental‑health mitigation as insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davies misappropriated client funds and committed dishonest acts in the Scott matter | Davies forged endorsements, converted settlement funds, and failed to distribute client proceeds | Davies acknowledged facts but attributed conduct partly to depression; did not dispute violations | Court found forgery, conversion, multiple ethics violations and misappropriation; violation established |
| Whether Davies provided competent representation and cooperated in the Babcock matter | Davies neglected litigation duties, missed filings and deadlines, leading to dismissal; failed to cooperate with disciplinary inquiry | Davies cited personal difficulties and mental‑health issues as contributing factors | Court found incompetence, neglect, and failure to cooperate; violations established |
| Whether Davies had conflicts and unlawfully benefited from the Griffith estate probate | Davies was creditor and probate attorney, failed to disclose conflict, took $50,000 without court approval, ignored a legitimate heir | Davies argued he had fee agreement/claim and later cited depression and factual disputes | Court found conflict of interest, excessive/unauthorized fee, unlawful taking, failure to cooperate with postjudgment proceedings; violations established |
| Appropriate sanction for multiple, egregious ethics violations including misappropriation | Relator sought severe discipline given misappropriation, dishonesty, pattern, financial harm, and lack of restitution | Davies urged consideration of mitigation (undiagnosed severe depression) and recommended indefinite suspension with conditions | Court rejected mitigation as insufficient, adopted board’s finding and imposed permanent disbarment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Dixon, 95 Ohio St.3d 490 (permanent disbarment for misappropriation, dishonesty, excessive fees, and lack of cooperation)
- Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kafantaris, 121 Ohio St.3d 387 (permanent disbarment for conversion of client funds, dishonesty, recordkeeping failures, and noncooperation)
- Greene Cty. Bar Assn. v. Saunders, 132 Ohio St.3d 29 (permanent disbarment for misappropriation, dishonesty, neglect, and failure to respond to disciplinary process)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Markijohn, 99 Ohio St.3d 489 (mental‑health mitigation can overcome presumptive sanction only if supported by abundant evidence)