Disciplinary Counsel v. Deters.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as

Disciplinary Counsel v. Deters, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5025.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before

the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-5025

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. DETERS.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it

may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Deters, Slip Opinion No.

2018-Ohio-5025.]

Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple violations of the Rules of Professional

Conduct—Respondent’s law license indefinitely suspended.

(No. 2018-0535—Submitted May 22, 2018—Decided December 18, 2018.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme

Court, No. 2016-076.

_______________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Mark Alan Deters, of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney

Registration No. 0085094, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2009.

{¶ 2} In a nine-count complaint certified to the Board of Professional

Conduct on November 29, 2016, relator, disciplinary counsel, alleged that Deters

committed multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The alleged

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

misconduct centered around Deters’s convictions for driving while under the

influence and violating a civil protection order. Among other claims, Deters was

also alleged to have failed to keep eight separate clients reasonably informed about

the status of their cases and to promptly refund the unearned portion of his clients’

fees upon the termination of his representation. Relator subsequently alleged

similar ethical violations arising from Deters’s representation of more than ten

additional clients.

{¶ 3} On September 29, 2017, we issued an interim remedial suspension

that prohibited Deters from practicing law pending the final disposition of this

disciplinary proceeding. Disciplinary Counsel v. Deters, 151 Ohio St.3d 1216,

2017-Ohio-7892, 85 N.E.3d 748.

{¶ 4} The parties entered into stipulations of fact, misconduct, and

aggravating and mitigating factors, and stipulated to the admission of 108 exhibits.

Based on those stipulations and the evidence adduced at a hearing, a panel of the

Board of Professional Conduct recommended that Deters be indefinitely suspended

from the practice of law, and that we place certain conditions on his reinstatement.

The board adopted the panel’s report and recommendation, and no objections have

been filed by the parties.

{¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and indefinitely

suspend Deters from the practice of law in Ohio with conditions on his

reinstatement.

Misconduct

Counts I - III: 2015 Contempt and Criminal Convictions

{¶ 6} In June 2015, Deters failed to appear on behalf of a client before the

Fairborn Municipal Court in a traffic case. One week later, he was late for another

client’s bench trial. In each case, the judge issued orders to Deters to show cause

why he should not be found in contempt. On July 9, 2015, Deters pleaded guilty to

both counts and offered to contact the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program

2

January Term, 2018

(“OLAP”). The judge found him in contempt and ordered him to pay fines and

costs totaling $730, which Deters paid that day. See State v. Deters, Fairborn M.C.

No. CR 1501086, and State v. Deters, Fairborn M.C. No. CR 1501120.

{¶ 7} In July 2015, Deters was pulled over in Xenia and subsequently

charged with misdemeanor counts of operating a motor vehicle while under the

influence (“OVI”), excessive speed, and not having his vehicle-registration

paperwork. State v. Deters, Xenia M.C. No. 15-TRC-03189. During the traffic

stop, police conducted an inventory search of his vehicle and found a loaded

handgun in the center console. Consequently, Deters was also charged with two

counts of improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle. State v. Deters, Xenia

M.C. No. 15-CRB-01227. On July 17, 2015, Deters was arraigned and pleaded not

guilty.

{¶ 8} Despite a domestic-violence civil protection order (“CPO”) against

Deters prohibiting him from contacting his estranged wife (State v. Deters, Lucas

C.P. No. DV2015-0464), in mid-August 2015, Deters had an altercation with her.

As she and some of her family members were driving away from the marital

residence, Deters threw a wine glass toward their vehicle, striking one of the

vehicle’s occupants in the head. The following day, Deters was arrested and

charged with misdemeanor offenses of assault, violating a protective order, and

obstructing official business. See State v. Deters, Xenia M.C. No. 15-CRB-01506.

{¶ 9} On October 7, 2015, Deters pleaded guilty to the charges in all his

pending Xenia Municipal Court cases, with the OVI charge having been amended

to maintaining physical control of a vehicle while under the influence.1 The trial

court revoked Deters’s bond and ordered him to be held in jail pending his

sentencing hearing. The following month, the court sentenced Deters to 180 days

1. Deters also pleaded guilty to two minor-misdemeanor offenses stemming from an August 13,

2015 incident—failure to confine a dog and failure to register a dog. See State v. Deters, Xenia

M.C. No. 15-CRB-1509.

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

in jail with credit for time served (giving him 137 days to serve in the Greene

County Jail), followed by a three-year term of intensive probation including drug,

alcohol, and mental-health assessments, and 90 days of “SCRAM” (secure

continuous remote alcohol monitoring). Deters was also ordered to not have any

contact with his estranged wife and to pay fines and costs totaling $1,798, which

he has paid in full.

{¶ 10} However, before the date on which Deters’s bond was revoked by

the Xenia Municipal Court, Deters had contacted his estranged wife through text

messages and social media and was charged with additional violations of the CPO.

State v. Deters, Sylvania M.C. Nos. CRB 1501833A and CRB 1501833B. But due

to his incarceration on the Xenia Municipal Court matters, Deters had failed to

appear for the scheduled hearings on the newest CPO-violation cases. In March

2016, after serving his sentence from the Xenia Municipal Court cases, Deters

pleaded guilty to one of the CPO violations and the other was dismissed. He was

sentenced to 180 days in jail, with 170 days suspended on probationary conditions

for five years, and ordered to pay a $600 fine and court costs.

{¶ 11} The parties stipulated and the board agreed that Deters’s contempt

convictions from the Fairborn Municipal Court violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d)

(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the

administration of justice) and that the conduct underlying his convictions in the

Xenia and Sylvania Municipal Courts violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a

lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to

practice law).

Counts IV - XI: Cases Pending During Deters’s Incarceration (October 2015 to

March 2016)

{¶ 12} Before Deters was incarcerated in October 2015, eight separate

clients paid him flat fees ranging from $1,500 to $3,500 to represent them in

pending criminal cases. Deters stipulated that he violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e) in

4

January Term, 2018

each case (requiring a lawyer to promptly refund any unearned fee upon the

lawyer’s withdrawal from employment). Although he performed some work on

behalf of those clients and his office staff sought continuances for their hearings

while Deters was in jail, Deters failed to timely inform many of his clients of his

incarceration. Moreover, Deters failed to return phone calls from some of the

affected clients. In at least two instances, warrants were issued for the clients’ arrest

after court-scheduled hearings were missed due to Deters’s incarceration and his

failure to notify his clients of his circumstances. And in another case, Deters failed

to turn the client’s file over to new counsel following the termination of his

representation.

{¶ 13} Furthermore, Deters waited more than one year after his

representation had terminated to issue refunds to two of the affected clients. And

at the time of Deters’s disciplinary hearing, he had not refunded unearned fees

(ranging from $1,500 to $3,500) to four of his clients.

{¶ 14} The parties stipulated and the board agreed that by engaging in the

conduct described in these counts, Deters committed four violations of

Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in

representing a client), six violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer

to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), two violations

of Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with

reasonable requests for information from the client), three violations of

Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit advance legal fees and expenses

into a client trust account, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or

expenses incurred), one violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer

withdrawing from representation to take steps reasonably practicable to protect a

client’s interest), eight violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to

promptly refund any unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

employment), and two violations of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from

engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).

Count XII: Neglect of Appellate Matters Following Incarceration

{¶ 15} Deters filed notices of appeal for two separate clients in September

2016, but failed to timely file appellate briefs or respond to the court’s show-cause

orders in those cases. The court dismissed one case for lack of prosecution and

appointed new counsel to represent the appellant in the second case. The parties

stipulated and the board agreed that this conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and

8.4(d).

Count XIII: Additional Misconduct From March 2016 to March 2017

{¶ 16} On March 9, 2017, Deters was arrested and charged with disorderly

conduct/public intoxication, a fourth-degree misdemeanor. He posted bond and

was released from jail later that day. State v. Deters, Kettering M.C. No. 17CRB-

00605. Subsequently, he pleaded guilty to an amended charge of disorderly

conduct, a minor misdemeanor, for which the trial court imposed a suspended $100

fine and court costs. In the interim, however, Deters had failed to notify his

probation officer of his arrest. He was arrested for a probation violation and held

in the Greene County Detention Center, though he was later furloughed to attend

inpatient drug-and-alcohol treatment. Following his return to the detention center,

the Xenia Municipal Court revoked his probation and imposed the remaining 389

days of his previously suspended sentences. State v. Deters, Xenia M.C. Nos. 15-

CRB-01227 and 15-CRB-01506. At Deters’s request, the court ordered that he be

admitted to a residential treatment program housed in the detention center.

{¶ 17} From the time that Deters was released from the Greene County

Detention Center in March 2016 until his arrest in March 2017, he had accepted

thousands of dollars in flat-fee payments from ten separate, additional clients.

However, Deters failed to perform the contracted legal work, spent the unearned

fees on his own personal and business expenses, and failed to refund any portion of

6

January Term, 2018

the unearned fees. The board found that Deters owed the ten affected clients

refunds totaling $19,305.39.

{¶ 18} The parties stipulated and the board found that Deters’s conduct in

each of those cases violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.16(e), and 8.4(h), and

that Deters also violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c) by failing to deposit advanced fees

into his client trust account in four of those cases. The panel unanimously

dismissed one other alleged rule violation.

Sanction

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

relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated, the

aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions

imposed in similar cases.

{¶ 20} As aggravating factors, the board found that Deters engaged in a

pattern of misconduct involving multiple offenses, see Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(3),

that resulted in numerous violations of the professional-conduct rules, see Gov.Bar

R. V(13)(B)(4). His failure to perform contracted legal services caused harm to

vulnerable clients. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(B)(8). Specifically, it caused significant

delay in the disposition of his clients’ legal matters, triggered the issuance of arrest

warrants for at least two of his clients, and led to the dismissal of another client’s

criminal appeal for lack of prosecution. Deters’s failure to refund unearned fees

also deprived multiple clients of their funds for a substantial period of time.

{¶ 21} The board found that two mitigating factors applied. Deters made a

full-and-free disclosure to the board and demonstrated a cooperative attitude toward

the disciplinary proceedings despite his incarceration. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(4).

He has also had other penalties and sanctions imposed for his criminal conduct and

contempt-of-court cases. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(6).

{¶ 22} Deters has been diagnosed with severe alcohol and

methamphetamine-specific stimulant-use disorders and an underlying mental

7

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

disorder. At Deters’s disciplinary hearing, he testified that he began abusing

alcohol in 2013, as a personal loss led to additional family-related difficulties that

included his criminal conduct and the demise of his marriage. Deters also stated

that (1) he had successfully completed an intensive six-week outpatient-treatment

program, (2) at the time of his disciplinary hearing, he had been sober for 10

months, and (3) he had recently re-engaged his OLAP contract. He also suggested

that he would resume treatment for his mental disorder once he obtained health

insurance. But Deters made no claim that his diagnosed disorders qualified as a

mitigating factor pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(7).

{¶ 23} The parties have stipulated and the board has found that the

appropriate sanction for Deters’s misconduct is an indefinite suspension from the

practice of law. In support of that sanction, the parties considered three cases in

which we indefinitely suspended attorneys who neglected their clients’ legal

matters, failed to reasonably communicate with their clients, and misappropriated

client funds—all while abusing alcohol and/or drugs. See Cleveland Metro. Bar

Assn. v. Lemieux, 139 Ohio St.3d 320, 2014-Ohio-2127, 11 N.E.3d 1157;

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Lawson, 119 Ohio St.3d 58, 2008-Ohio-3340, 891 N.E.2d

749; Columbus Bar Assn. v. McCorkle, 105 Ohio St.3d 430, 2005-Ohio-2588, 828

N.E.2d 99. We agree that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction for

Deters’s misconduct.

{¶ 24} Accordingly, Mark Alan Deters is indefinitely suspended from the

practice of law in Ohio and ordered to make restitution as follows: $2,000 to

Tammy Ault, $2,500 to Guy Baker, $3,000 to Jay K. Brown, $2,500 to Derek R.

Cummings, $1,500 to William Gonzalez, $1,500 to Sarah T. Greggerson, $1,805.39

to Todd A. Grubb, $2,400 to Burt Hawkins, $1,000 to Harold W. Johnson, $2,500

to Dana Konicki, $3,000 to Johnathan W. Martin, $1,500 to Kyra Milton, $500 to

James Moers II, and $3,500 to Steven Muench.

8

January Term, 2018

{¶ 25} In addition to the requirements set forth in Gov.Bar R. V (25)(D)(1),

Deters’s reinstatement shall be conditioned on the submission of proof that he has

(1) complied with all terms and treatment recommendations of his existing OLAP

contract and any extensions deemed necessary by OLAP, (2) received a prognosis

from a qualified chemical-dependency professional and, if applicable, a qualified

mental-health professional, stating that he is capable of returning to the competent,

ethical, and professional practice of law, and (3) made full restitution to the clients

identified herein or reimbursed the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection for any

amounts awarded to those individuals. Costs are taxed to Deters.

Judgment accordingly.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE,

and DEGENARO, JJ., concur.

_________________

Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel; Joseph M. Caligiuri, Chief Assistant

Disciplinary Counsel; and Michelle R. Bowman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel,

for relator.

James E. Arnold & Associates, L.P.A., and Alvin E. Mathews, for

respondent.

_________________

9