indefinitely suspending an attorney convicted of bank fraud and conspiracy to commit tax fraud, arising from a real estate transaction
How later courts described this case
- indefinitely suspending an attorney convicted of bank fraud and conspiracy to commit tax fraud, arising from a real estate transaction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 91 Ohio St.3d 398.]
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. BRUNNER.
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Brunner, 2001-Ohio-82.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension with credit for time served
since date of interim suspension—Conviction for bank fraud—Conviction
for conspiracy to commit tax fraud.
(No. 00-1564—Submitted December 12, 2000—Decided May 2, 2001.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-104.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} On December 8, 1997, relator, Dayton Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging that respondent, L. Keith Brunner of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0006567, violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not engage in
conduct involving moral turpitude) and 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). Respondent
answered, admitting all the allegations of the complaint and asking that he be heard
in mitigation. Thereupon the matter was referred to a panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”).
{¶ 2} Based on the stipulations of the parties and testimony at a hearing, the
panel found that in 1984, Arthur Millonig, one of respondent’s partners in a group
known as the “Brunner Principals,” arranged to purchase commercial real estate in
Allen, Texas, from the owner, Securities Savings Association of Texarkana
(“SSA”), for $13,200,000. The property was also subject to an $8,000,000
mortgage. At the time SSA had a number of troubled loans, but this property had
appreciated from the time SSA acquired it and the profit from such a sale could
bolster SSA’s financial position.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 3} Although federal regulations prohibited SSA from financing one
hundred percent of the purchase price, SSA lent $2,600,000 to three Brunner
Principals, not including respondent, who then lent the money to Millonig.
Millonig in turn used the funds as his twenty percent down payment on the real
estate. Millonig also gave SSA a second mortgage for $2,600,000 and assumed the
$8,000,000 first mortgage. Millonig was thereby able to obtain financing for one
hundred percent of the purchase price from SSA. Respondent was not involved in
the transfer of the funds, but he was involved in structuring and orchestrating the
transaction.
{¶ 4} On March 22, 1996, respondent pled guilty to two counts of bank
fraud in violation of Section 1344, Title 18, U.S.Code, and was sentenced to prison
for forty-eight months and fined $10,000. He also pled guilty to conspiracy to
commit tax fraud in violation of Section 371, Title 18, U.S.Code and was sentenced
to six months in prison, two years of supervised release, and fined $5,000. Special
assessments were also imposed. Because of these felony convictions, we
suspended respondent on December 19, 1996, for an interim period. In re Brunner
(1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 1499, 673 N.E.2d 597.
{¶ 5} Respondent was incarcerated in federal prisons from November 1996
through mid-July 1998. He then spent nine months at a halfway house and was
subject to home confinement for three months. At the time of the panel hearing,
respondent had completed all his prison terms, paid all his fines, and was employed
as the Chief Operating Officer of a financial services company.
{¶ 6} At the hearing, the relator withdrew the charge of a violation of DR
1-102(A)(3). The panel concluded that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4). In
mitigation, the panel found that respondent cooperated with the federal
investigation and recommended that he be indefinitely suspended from the practice
of law with credit given for the time he served since the date of his interim
2
January Term, 2001
suspension. The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the panel.
{¶ 7} We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings, conclusion, and
recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from
the practice of law with credit given for the time he has served since the date of his
interim suspension, December 18, 1996. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
Patrick W. Allen, for relator.
Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.
__________________
3