Disciplinary Counsel v. Meehan

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Meehan, 133 Ohio St.3d 51, 2012-Ohio-3894.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MEEHAN

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Meehan, 133 Ohio St.3d 51, 2012-Ohio-3894.]

Attorneys—Misconduct—Practicing law in violation of jurisdictional

regulations—Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of

justice—Twenty-four-month suspension, stayed on conditions.

(No. 2011-2045—Submitted January 18, 2012—Decided August 29, 2012.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-029.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Michael Patrick Meehan of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0059515, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1992.

Relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint in March 2011, charging Meehan

with multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. After rejecting the

parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, which recommended a 12-month stayed

suspension, a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline

conducted a hearing to consider disciplinary counsel’s allegations of misconduct.

At the conclusion of evidence, and upon consideration of the parties’ agreed

stipulations, the panel determined that there was clear and convincing evidence

that Meehan had committed violations of three Rules of Professional Conduct.

The panel recommended that Meehan be suspended from the practice of law for

24 months, with the entire suspension stayed on a number of stringent conditions.

The board adopted the panel’s report.

{¶ 2} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and

we adopt the board’s recommendation that Meehan be suspended from the

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

practice of law in Ohio for 24 months, with the entire suspension stayed on

conditions.

Misconduct

{¶ 3} Meehan owns and operates Evergreen Title Agency, Ltd., and his

legal practice is largely limited to eviction actions. This court administratively

suspended Meehan from the practice of law, effective November 3, 2009, because

he failed to renew his registration. Meehan admitted that he had received the

letter notifying him of the suspension; however, he did not open any of his mail at

that time, including the suspension letter, because he was experiencing a major

depressive episode. Between November 2009 and May 2010, Meehan continued

to practice law by filing eight eviction complaints in northern Ohio courts on

behalf of his primary client, Midwest Properties, L.L.C., or its managing member.

Neither the members of Midwest Properties nor the signatories on the deeds

notarized by Meehan were aware of his suspension.

{¶ 4} Meehan became aware of his suspension in May 2010, when he

accessed his Ohio attorney-registration records to determine the extent of his

continuing-legal-education (“CLE”) obligations. Upon discovering that he was

suspended, Meehan immediately took all necessary steps and had his license

reinstated on May 18, 2010. During the short period of time between discovery

and reinstatement, Meehan did not engage in any activities as an attorney.

{¶ 5} The parties stipulated, and the board concluded, that Meehan’s

conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in

a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that

jurisdiction) and 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is

prejudicial to the administration of justice) and (h) (prohibiting a lawyer from

engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law).

2

January Term, 2012

Sanction

{¶ 6} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we weigh

evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg.

10(B). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251,

875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. In making a final determination, we consider a number of

factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the sanctions

imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424,

2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. Because each disciplinary case is unique,

we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take all relevant

factors into account in determining what sanction to impose. BCGD Proc.Reg.

10(B).

{¶ 7} The board found as aggravating factors that Meehan had engaged

in a pattern of misconduct and committed multiple violations of the Rules of

Professional Conduct. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d). However, because

all the offenses committed during the pattern of misconduct arose from a major

depressive episode, the board accorded less weight to the aggravating factors than

to the mitigating factors.

{¶ 8} The board found as mitigating factors that Meehan had no record

of professional misconduct, that he lacked any selfish or dishonest motive, that he

provided full and free disclosure during disciplinary counsel’s investigation, that

he was cooperative during the disciplinary proceedings, and that he provided

evidence of good character and reputation. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d),

and (e). The board further found that Meehan was diagnosed with a mental

disability (major depressive disorder) by a qualified health-care professional, that

he provided adequate proof that the disability contributed to his misconduct, that

he has undergone a sustained successful period of treatment, and that he is

capable of returning to competently and ethically practicing law. BCGD

Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g).

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 9} The board recommended that Meehan be suspended from the

practice of law in Ohio for a period of 24 months, with all 24 months stayed on

the condition that he (1) continue mental-health treatment and counseling

throughout the 24-month period, (2) enter into an Ohio Lawyers Assistance

Program (“OLAP”) contract and comply with all of its requirements during the

period of the stayed suspension, (3) comply with all CLE requirements imposed

by this court, (4) pay the cost of the present action, (5) not commit any further

misconduct during the stayed suspension, and (6) submit to an additional two-year

probationary period, monitored by disciplinary counsel, following the completion

of the period of the stayed suspension. We adopt the board’s recommendation.

{¶ 10} In a classic instance of practicing law while under suspension,

disbarment is appropriate. See Akron Bar Assn. v. Thorpe, 40 Ohio St.3d 174,

532 N.E.2d 752 (1988); Disciplinary Counsel v. McDonald, 71 Ohio St.3d 628,

646 N.E.2d 819 (1995); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Shabazz, 74 Ohio St.3d 24, 656

N.E.2d 325 (1995). In Thorpe, the attorney was aware that he had been

indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, but he engaged in settlement

negotiations on behalf of a client in conscious disregard of the suspension.

Thorpe at 174. This court agreed with the board’s recommendation for permanent

disbarment. Id. In McDonald, the attorney was publicly reprimanded for

neglecting a legal matter and was later indefinitely suspended from the practice of

law for refusing to pay the court costs from the reprimand proceedings.

McDonald at 628. The attorney disregarded the suspension order, continued to

practice law, was convicted of operating a vehicle while under the influence of

alcohol or drugs, neglected client matters, and stole client funds. This court

rejected the recommended indefinite suspension and ordered permanent

disbarment. Id. at 629. In Shabazz, the attorney had twice been suspended from

the practice of law for multiple instances of misconduct. Shabazz at 24. The

partial stay on the initial suspension was revoked when the attorney committed

4

January Term, 2012

further misconduct, and he was suspended yet again after he committed additional

misconduct. Id. at 24-25. The attorney practiced law in disregard of his

suspension and used the name of another attorney without that attorney’s

authority. Id. This court rejected the recommendation of an indefinite suspension

and ordered permanent disbarment. Id. at 25.

{¶ 11} Although disbarment is generally necessary “where previous

sanctions have been ignored with relative impunity,” McDonald at 629, lesser

sanctions may also be appropriate depending on the circumstances of the

attorney’s misconduct. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Blackwell, 79 Ohio St.3d 395,

683 N.E.2d 1074 (1997); Disciplinary Counsel v. Carson, 93 Ohio St.3d 137, 753

N.E.2d 172 (2001). We must keep in mind that “our primary purpose in imposing

disciplinary sanctions is not to punish the offender but to protect the public.”

Toledo Bar Assn. v. Scott, 129 Ohio St.3d 479, 2011-Ohio-4185, 953 N.E.2d 831,

¶ 16.

{¶ 12} In Blackwell, the attorney practiced for 15 months even though he

had not completed his attorney registration for the biennium, failed to meet his

CLE requirements for three reporting periods, and was suspended from the

practice of law pending reinstatement after his third instance of failing to

complete his CLE requirements. Blackwell at 395. The attorney failed to meet

the requirements for reinstatement, failed to notify his clients of his suspension,

and continued to practice law for approximately three months before filing for

reinstatement. Id. This court rejected the recommended sanction of an indefinite

suspension and held that a two-year suspension with the second year stayed was

appropriate because of “the specific facts and circumstances of this case, and

particularly * * * the board's recommendation and the fact that most of

respondent's violations occurred during a period when he was achieving a

successful recovery from alcoholism.” Id. at 397.

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 13} In Carson, the attorney practiced for approximately seven years

while under suspension for noncompliance with CLE requirements. Carson at

137. The attorney had mistakenly believed that he could return to practice after

paying various sanctions without reapplying for readmission. Id. at 138. This

court agreed with the board’s recommended sanction of a two-year suspension

with one year stayed, noting that the attorney’s noncompliance was inadvertent

and was related to alcohol-dependence issues and that he had been working

closely with OLAP to address those issues. Id.

{¶ 14} In the present case, Meehan’s misconduct is much more closely

aligned with these latter cases than those cases in which permanent disbarment

was warranted. Given the unique circumstances surrounding Meehan’s conduct,

including the evidence of his treatment for depression, his immediate cessation of

practice upon learning of his suspension, his complete cooperation during

disciplinary proceedings, and disciplinary counsel’s repeated recommendation of

a fully stayed suspension, we conclude that a stayed suspension is warranted. We

therefore adopt the board’s recommendation.

{¶ 15} Meehan is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 24

months, with the entire suspension stayed, subject to the conditions requiring him

to continue mental-health treatment and counseling throughout the 24-month

period, enter into an OLAP contract and comply with all of its requirements

during the stayed suspension, comply with all CLE requirements imposed by this

court, pay the cost of the present action, refrain from committing any further

misconduct during the stayed suspension, and submit to an additional two-year

probationary period, monitored by disciplinary counsel, following the completion

of the period of the stayed suspension. If Meehan fails to comply with these

conditions, the stay will be lifted, and he will be required to serve the entire two-

year suspension. Costs are taxed to Meehan.

Judgment accordingly.

6

January Term, 2012

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.

__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Koblentz & Penrose, L.L.C., and Richard S. Koblentz, for respondent.

______________________

7