Toledo Bar Assn. v. Scott
129 Ohio St. 3d 479
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Respondent Robert Bernal Scott, admitted 2001, faced a multi-count disciplinary complaint filed February 8, 2010 by the Toledo Bar Association.
- Stipulations and panel findings concerned misconduct in the Jameson murder representation, including misuse of client funds and property.
- Counts 1–3 included: misappropriation/ improper handling of funds and property, lack of malpractice-insurance notice, and trust-account record-keeping deficiencies.
- Respondent allegedly forged billing documents and fabricated time records to mislead investigators.
- Board recommended a one-year suspension with six months stayed; the Supreme Court rejected the stipulation and imposed a two-year suspension with conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did respondent engage in multiple misconduct acts? | Scott engaged in extensive misappropriation and deceit. | Scott disputes the severity or existence of some alleged acts. | Yes; the conduct violated multiple ethics rules. |
| Was the proposed sanction appropriate based on the stipulated violations? | A shorter suspension was warranted given stipulations and mitigating factors. | The stipulated sanction underestimates the seriousness of the misconduct. | No; two-year suspension with conditions is warranted. |
| Did respondent’s acts constitute deceit toward disciplinary authorities? | Fabricated bills and misleading records show deceptive conduct. | Any deception was not proven to be purposeful or material. | Deceit established; violations of 8.1(a) and related rules. |
| Did respondent’s handling of client funds and property violate trust-account rules? | Funds and property were mishandled; records were inadequate. | Any mismanagement was inadvertent or non-criminal in effect. | Violations of 1.15(a) and 1.15(c) established. |
| Did respondent’s lack of malpractice-insurance notice amount to a separate violation? | Failure to notify client about lack of malpractice insurance constitutes misconduct. | Notifying clients about insurance was not required in this context. | Violation established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. McMahon, 114 Ohio St.3d 331 (2007-Ohio-3673) (fabrication of evidence and deceit threaten professional standards)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Blair, 128 Ohio St.3d 384 (2011-Ohio-767) (guardian misconduct involving misappropriation and false affidavits)
- Dayton Bar Assn. v. Gross, 62 Ohio St.3d 224 (1991-Ohio-) (power-of-attorney misuse and personal-fund depletion)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Farrell, 119 Ohio St.3d 529 (2008-Ohio-4540) (forged signatures on power of attorney and falsified documents)
- Northwest Ohio Bar Assn. v. Archer, 129 Ohio St.3d 204 (2011-Ohio-3142) (malpractice-insurance lapse and misappropriation of wages/taxes)
- Stark County Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424 (2002-Ohio-4743) (sanction framework for attorney misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Jackson, 127 Ohio St.3d 250 (2010-Ohio-5709) (guidance on appropriate sanctions for similar misconduct)
- O’Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 204 (2004-Ohio-4704) (principles for evaluating discipline and protection of the public)