Disciplinary Counsel v. Cantrell

125 Ohio St. 3d 458, 2010-Ohio-2114 (2010) · Supreme Court of Ohio · May 20, 2010 · No. 2009-2339

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Doreen Cantrell committed multiple violations involving misuse of her client trust account, misappropriation of estate funds, practicing law while inactive, and misconduct in a minor guardianship matter. The court accepted the findings and recommendations of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline and indefinitely suspended Cantrell from practicing law in Ohio. Costs were taxed to Cantrell.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Pfeifer, J.; Lundberg Stratton, J.; O'Connor, J.; O'Donnell, J.; Lanzinger, J.; Cupp, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
May 20, 2010
Docket number
2009-2339
Procedural posture
Attorney-discipline proceeding based on a certified report of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommending an indefinite suspension.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court independently reviews the Board's findings and determines the appropriate sanction in attorney-discipline proceedings; misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence.
Precedential value
Published opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio; precedential.
Parties
Disciplinary Counsel v. Doreen Cantrell
Disposition
other

Topics

probate procedureguardianshipsestate administrationprobatetrust administration

Practice areas

attorney disciplinelegal ethicsprobateguardianship

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Cantrell violated the cited Disciplinary Rules, Rules of Professional Conduct, and Government Bar Rules through misuse of her client trust account, misappropriation of client and estate funds, unauthorized practice while inactive, misconduct in administering an estate, and misconduct as guardian of a minor.
  2. Whether the alleged violations that the panel and Board found unsupported by clear and convincing evidence should be dismissed.
  3. What sanction is appropriate for Cantrell's multiple violations and pattern of misconduct.

Holdings

  1. The court accepted the Board's findings that Cantrell violated the specified professional-conduct and bar rules by misusing her client trust account, misappropriating client and estate funds, practicing law while her license was inactive, mishandling estate matters, and engaging in misconduct as guardian of a minor.
  2. The court dismissed the alleged violations for which the panel and Board found that Disciplinary Counsel had not established misconduct by clear and convincing evidence, including certain alleged false statements and failures to cooperate, alleged false statements to a tribunal, alleged dishonesty relating to the estate-fee payment, and an alleged violation of DR 7-101(A)(3).
  3. An indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio was appropriate.

Key quotations

We are ever mindful that the primary purpose of the disciplinary process is not to punish the offender but to protect the public from lawyers who are unworthy of the trust and confidence essential to the attorney-client relationship. (¶ 19)
Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. (¶ 25)

Factual background

Cantrell used her client trust account for personal expenses, deposited personal funds into the account, allowed it to become overdrawn repeatedly, and misappropriated estate funds. She represented a decedent's estate while her law license was inactive, received estate attorney fees that had not been approved by the probate court, and depleted $25,000 that she was required to hold for an estate beneficiary. She also acted as guardian for a minor and executed a deed conveying the minor's property before posting a court-ordered bond.

Procedural history

Disciplinary Counsel filed a nine-count amended complaint alleging violations of the former Disciplinary Rules, the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, and Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar. Cantrell stipulated to certain facts and violations but did not appear at the panel hearing. The panel and Board recommended an indefinite suspension, and the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the Board's findings and recommendation while dismissing several alleged violations that were not proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…