Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kellogg

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kellogg, 126 Ohio St.3d 360, 2010-Ohio-3285.]

CINCINNATI BAR ASSN. v. KELLOGG.

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kellogg, 126 Ohio St.3d 360, 2010-Ohio-3285.]

Attorney misconduct, including money-laundering conviction — Indefinite

suspension.

(No. 2009-2302 — Submitted March 30, 2010 — Decided July 20, 2010.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-092.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Paul Joseph Kellogg of West Chester, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0062303, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1993.

{¶ 2} In December 2008, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a

complaint charging respondent with multiple violations of the Code of

Professional Responsibility arising from his August 2008 conviction in the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on two counts of money

laundering, two counts of conspiracy to commit money laundering, one count of

conspiracy to obstruct proceedings before the United States Federal Trade

Commission (“FTC”), and one count of conspiracy to obstruct proceedings before

the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).

{¶ 3} In May 2009, a three-member panel of the Board of

Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline conducted a hearing, wherein it

heard testimony from respondent and two character witnesses, and admitted 18

exhibits, including several stipulations of the parties. At the hearing, relator

suggested that the appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct is

disbarment, while respondent asked the panel to recommend a two-year

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

suspension with either a partial stay or credit for his voluntary withdrawal from

the practice of law upon his conviction.

{¶ 4} In July 2009, the panel approved a proposed agreed order

permitting relator to amend its complaint to allege that respondent’s conduct

violated either the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility or the Ohio Rules of

Professional Conduct. The original complaint alleged violations of only the Rules

of Professional Conduct, but the conduct occurred prior to the effective date of

those rules.

{¶ 5} After considering all the evidence, the panel made findings of fact,

including a finding that respondent’s misconduct occurred before February 1,

2007, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The panel

concluded that respondent had committed six violations of the Code of

Professional Responsibility and recommended that respondent be suspended from

the practice of law for two years, with the final six months of the suspension

stayed on the condition that he comply with the requirements of his supervised

release.

{¶ 6} On December 14, 2009, we imposed an interim felony suspension

on respondent’s license pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4). In re Kellogg, 123

Ohio St.3d 1518, 2009-Ohio-6503, 918 N.E.2d 163. And on December 22, 2009,

the board adopted the panel report in its entirety and recommended that

respondent’s suspension begin to run on January 15, 2009, the date that he began

serving his prison sentence.

{¶ 7} Relator objects to the board’s recommended sanction, arguing that

pursuant to our precedent, respondent’s felony convictions for money laundering

warrant permanent disbarment. Respondent urges us to adopt the board’s

recommended sanction, which he contends reflects the panel’s assessment of the

unique facts and circumstances of his case. However, we reject these

2

January Term, 2010

recommendations and find that the appropriate sanction for respondent’s

misconduct is an indefinite suspension.

Misconduct

{¶ 8} From the time he was admitted to practice until 2003, respondent’s

practice consisted mainly of estate-planning and small-business matters. In

August 2003, he accepted a position as general counsel for a rapidly growing

nutraceutical company owned by his childhood friend, Steve Warshak.

{¶ 9} In late 2003 and early 2004, numerous government agencies,

including the FTC, the FDA, and attorneys general from 17 states, began to

investigate the company’s operations. And in March 2004, the first of six class-

action suits was filed against the company. The primary focus of these

investigations, other than the FDA’s, and lawsuits was the company’s practice of

enrolling its customers into a “continuity program,” under which the company

automatically shipped and charged customers for products that they had not

ordered.

{¶ 10} As a result of the FTC and FDA investigations, a federal grand

jury indicted respondent on nine felony counts. In February 2008, a jury found

him guilty of two counts of conspiracy to commit money laundering, two counts

of money laundering, and one count of conspiracy to obstruct proceedings before

the FTC for his role in a scheme to protect Warshak’s assets from the FTC and

future legal claims by transferring $14 million into two separate trusts. Although

outside counsel prepared the trust documents, respondent reviewed them to ensure

that they complied with Ohio law and served as the trustee for both trusts. The

jury also found respondent guilty of a single count of conspiracy to obstruct

proceedings before the FDA, for instigating the removal of a misbranded1

1. The misbranded product claimed to contain ingredients that it did not. At the criminal trial, a

warehouse employee testified that he had repackaged the product, originally in boxes that

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

supplement from the company’s warehouse after learning that an FDA inspection

of the facility was imminent. The jury acquitted respondent of the remaining

counts.

{¶ 11} Despite a guideline sentencing range of 235 to 293 months, and a

probation office’s recommendation of a 188-month sentence, the trial court

sentenced respondent to one year and one day in federal prison, making him

eligible for a 15 percent reduction in his prison time. He was released to a

halfway house in August 2009, and upon the expiration of the remainder of his

prison term in November 2009, began serving a three-year period of supervised

release.

{¶ 12} Based upon these findings, the board concluded that respondent’s

conduct, all of which occurred prior to February 1, 2007, violated DR 1-

102(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in illegal conduct involving moral

turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (prohibiting a lawyer

from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 7-

102(A)(7) (prohibiting a lawyer from counseling or assisting his client in conduct

that the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent), 7-102(A)(8) (prohibiting a

lawyer from knowingly engaging in illegal conduct), and 7-109(A) (prohibiting a

lawyer from suppressing any evidence that he or his client has a legal obligation

to reveal or produce). We accept these findings of misconduct.

Sanction

{¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider

relevant 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. In making a final

identified it as promoting prostate health, into boxes that identified it as promoting heart health.

The repackaged product was then put into the company’s stock to be sold to customers.

4

January Term, 2010

determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors

listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on

Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio

St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. Because each disciplinary

case involves unique facts and circumstances, we are not limited to the factors

specified in the rule and may take into account “all relevant factors” in

determining which sanction to impose. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).

{¶ 14} Here, respondent both conspired to commit and committed money

laundering by assisting in the creation of two trusts designed to protect $14

million of Warshak’s assets—the ill-begotten gains of the company’s “continuity

program”—from the FTC and future lawsuits by its customers. By instructing an

employee to “get rid of” a misbranded product housed in the company’s

warehouse, he also set in motion a scheme to conceal evidence of the company’s

misdeeds from federal investigators. This conduct involving dishonesty and

moral turpitude violated the very laws that respondent took an oath to uphold.

{¶ 15} As for aggravating factors, the board determined that respondent

acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, although he apparently did not benefit

financially from his actions, and that he engaged in multiple offenses of

misconduct. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b) and (d). And in mitigation, the board

found that respondent has no prior disciplinary record, has made some efforts to

rectify the consequences of his misconduct, has been cooperative in the

disciplinary proceedings, has established that he is a person of good character,

despite his criminal convictions, and has been penalized by the criminal justice

system for his misconduct. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f).

{¶ 16} The board also considered that respondent has accepted

responsibility for his actions and has expressed remorse. It noted that, with the

federal court’s blessing, respondent continued to work for the company, assisting

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

the bankruptcy trustee in his efforts to sell the company as a going concern, and

that he immediately ceased practicing law upon his sentencing. Additionally, it

appears that the board considered respondent’s leukemia, which was diagnosed

near the time of his misconduct, to be a mitigating factor.

{¶ 17} Weighing these factors, the board recommended that we impose a

two-year suspension, with six months stayed, beginning on January 15, 2009, the

date that respondent began serving his prison sentence. While we may defer to

the expertise of the panel or board, accepting their findings of misconduct or their

recommended sanctions for misconduct, as the ultimate arbiter of misconduct and

sanctions in disciplinary cases, we are not required to do so. Disciplinary

Counsel v. Kelly, 121 Ohio St.3d 39, 2009-Ohio-317, 901 N.E.2d 798, ¶ 11, citing

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Powers, 119 Ohio St.3d 473, 2008-Ohio-4785, 895

N.E.2d 172, ¶ 21.

{¶ 18} In support of its objections, relator cites a number of cases in

which this court has permanently disbarred attorneys who engaged in money

laundering and other comparable crimes. But those cases do not hold that

permanent disbarment is the presumptive sanction for money laundering. And

even when there is a presumption in favor of permanent disbarment, that

presumption may be rebutted by evidence in mitigation. See, e.g., Disciplinary

Counsel v. Smith, 101 Ohio St.3d 27, 2003-Ohio-6623, 800 N.E.2d 1129, ¶ 9

(“Absent any mitigating factors, disbarment is the appropriate sanction for an

attorney’s misappropriation of client funds”); Disciplinary Counsel v. Hunter, 106

Ohio St.3d 418, 2005-Ohio-5411, 835 N.E.2d 707, ¶ 42 (Moyer, C.J., dissenting)

(“by definition, a presumptive sanction of disbarment does not preclude the

application of mitigation. That is, the presumption in favor of disbarment in the

case of theft from clients is a rebuttable one”).

{¶ 19} The cases relator cites in favor of permanent disbarment are

factually distinguishable from the facts presented here. In Toledo Bar Assn. v.

6

January Term, 2010

Cook, 114 Ohio St.3d 108, 2007-Ohio-3253, 868 N.E.2d 973, numerous

aggravating factors—including respondent’s prior disciplinary record for self-

dealing, her deceptive explanations for her actions, and her failure to recognize

how her actions violated the ethical standards for lawyers or why those standards

even exist—weighed in favor of a more severe sanction, but there were no

mitigating factors warranting leniency.

{¶ 20} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Bein, 105 Ohio St.3d 62, 2004-Ohio-

7012, 822 N.E.2d 358, respondent had engaged in a pattern of criminal conduct

over a five-year period, showed no remorse, downplayed his role in the criminal

conspiracy, caused significant financial harm to the victims of his thefts and

conspiracy, and was motivated by financial gain. Moreover, relator did not learn

about the respondent’s federal convictions until six years after the respondent was

sentenced. Id. at ¶ 4, 5, 8, 12. The only mitigating factors weighing in favor of

leniency were the respondent’s lack of a prior disciplinary record, his cooperation

during the disciplinary process, and the imposition of other penalties in his

criminal case. Id. at ¶ 9. And in Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Banks (2002), 94 Ohio

St.3d 428, 763 N.E.2d 1166, the respondent failed to participate in the

disciplinary proceedings against him, and he knowingly gave materially false

testimony on four separate occasions during his criminal trial in federal court.

{¶ 21} Of the cases cited by relator, the related cases of Disciplinary

Counsel v. Jones (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 74, 609 N.E.2d 150, and Disciplinary

Counsel v. Williams (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 71, 609 N.E.2d 149, are perhaps the

most analogous to the case at bar. Those respondents engaged in a conspiracy to

launder more than $50,000 that they believed to be the proceeds from the sale of

illegal drugs. In permanently disbarring Jones, we acknowledged the mitigating

evidence that he had initiated the scheme due to economic hardship and that he

had submitted numerous letters attesting to his good character. But we also noted

that Jones’s active participation in the laundering scheme and his “belief that his

7

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

conduct did not involve moral turpitude” were aggravating factors. We also

disbarred Williams for his participation, despite evidence that he had cooperated

with the government, that he had accepted responsibility for his crime, and that he

was the least culpable participant in the scheme.

{¶ 22} But recently, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Gittinger, 125 Ohio St.3d.

467, 2010-Ohio-1830, 929 N.E.2d 410, we imposed an indefinite suspension on

an attorney convicted of money laundering and conspiracy to commit bank fraud,

based in part upon a condition in the respondent’s federal criminal sentence that

prohibited him from practicing law during his five-year term of supervised

release.

{¶ 23} Here, based upon the seriousness and severity of respondent’s

crimes, we agree that his misconduct warrants a greater sanction than the board

has recommended. We observe that despite federal guidelines recommending a

sentence of 19 to 24 years in prison, respondent served only ten and one-half

months, seven and one-half months in prison and three months in a halfway

house, and is currently serving three years of supervised release. If we were to

impose the board’s recommended sanction, respondent could resume the practice

of law more than two years before the expiration of that supervised release.

{¶ 24} But even if we were to accept relator’s arguments that we should

reject two factors that the board considered mitigating—namely respondent’s

leukemia diagnosis, which relator argues should be rejected because it has not

been causally linked to respondent’s criminal conduct, and respondent’s

acceptance of responsibility for his actions, which relator questions, arguing that

respondent tried to minimize his culpability—the mitigating factors in this case

would still weigh in favor of a sanction less severe than permanent disbarment.

{¶ 25} In particular, we note that respondent has assisted the company’s

bankruptcy trustee in his efforts to sell the company as a going concern, which

preserved the jobs of more than 200 innocent employees. Respondent also

8

January Term, 2010

cooperated with a federal investigation of the legal firm that drafted the trusts and

provided counsel to the company. Moreover, the letters and testimony offered by

respondent demonstrate that he is known for his honesty and integrity, despite his

criminal convictions, and that the conduct leading to his convictions was an

aberration, rather than the norm. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c), (d), and (e).

{¶ 26} Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the appropriate

sanction for respondent’s misconduct is an indefinite suspension. Accordingly,

Paul Joseph Kellogg is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in

the state of Ohio. Respondent may petition for reinstatement once he has

completed the term of supervised release imposed by the federal court in his

underlying criminal case, but not before the two-year period that respondent must

wait before petitioning for reinstatement pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(10)(B). Costs

are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent.

BROWN, C.J., not participating.

__________________

O’DONNELL, J., dissenting.

{¶ 27} I respectfully dissent. The appropriate sanction for this level of

misconduct is disbarment. As the majority opinion recounts, respondent did not

plead guilty but rather contested the charges and was found guilty by a jury of two

counts of conspiracy to commit money laundering, two counts of money

laundering involving $14 million, and conspiracy to obstruct official proceedings

before two federal agencies, the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and

Drug Administration.

{¶ 28} The federal sentencing guidelines suggest a prison sentence for

such conduct of 20 to 25 years. Respondent served less than one year. Despite

9

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

mitigation, our role is to protect the public from lawyers who fail to adhere to the

highest ethical standards, not coddle offending attorneys. Respondent’s conduct

is the epitome of disrespect for the system of justice he swore to uphold.

Accordingly, I would disbar respondent for this conduct.

O’CONNOR, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

__________________

Susan R. Bell and Peter Rosenwald, for relator.

Bieser, Greer & Landis, L.L.P., David C. Greer, and James P. Fleisher, for

respondent.

______________________

10