Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio found that Percy Squire committed multiple violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct involving mishandling client funds, inadequate trust-account records, improper business transactions with a client, and false statements during the disciplinary investigation. The court dismissed some alleged violations and indefinitely suspended Squire from the practice of law in Ohio.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether clear and convincing evidence established that Squire violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct through commingling and mishandling client funds, inadequate trust-account records, unauthorized use of client funds, undisclosed business transactions with clients, and false statements during the disciplinary investigation.
- Whether Squire misappropriated Mark D. Lay's insurance proceeds and whether the evidence established misappropriation of the separate Lay defense and welfare fund.
- What sanction was appropriate for Squire's multiple violations, including misappropriation, dishonesty, commingling, inadequate recordkeeping, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
- Whether additional exhibits attached to Squire's answer brief should be considered.
Holdings
- The court adopted the supported findings that Squire violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a), 1.15(c), 1.16(e), 8.4(h), 1.8(a), 8.1(a), 8.4(c), and related provisions, while dismissing allegations not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
- Squire misappropriated Lay's $113,228.18 in insurance proceeds by dishonestly applying them to his own personal expenses and attorney fees without authorization.
- The evidence did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that Squire's use of the $280,000 Lay defense and welfare fund was dishonest or wrongful, although his handling of the fund and lack of documentation raised grave concerns.
- The court granted the relator's motion to strike exhibits attached to Squire's answer brief because Squire did not establish exceptional circumstances for introducing additional evidence at that stage.
- An indefinite suspension from the practice of law in Ohio was the appropriate sanction for Squire's multiple acts of misconduct, including misappropriation, dishonesty, commingling, inadequate recordkeeping, and undisclosed client transactions.
Key quotations
“Although Squire claims that his use of money from both funds was authorized, the testimony of Lay and Smalls clearly and convincingly demonstrates that his use of the insurance proceeds to pay his personal expenses and his own attorney fees was not authorized.” (¶ 47)
“Therefore, we sustain relator’s objection to the board’s recommended sanction and conclude that the appropriate sanction for Squire’s misconduct is an indefinite license suspension.” (¶ 70)
“Accordingly, Percy Squire is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio.” (¶ 71)
Factual background
Squire repeatedly commingled client funds, personal funds, borrowed funds, and earned fees in his client trust account and used the account for personal and business expenses. He failed to maintain detailed records, billing records, fee agreements, and documentation supporting claimed client-related expenditures. In connection with Mark D. Lay, Squire received $113,228.18 in insurance proceeds and later $280,000 for a defense and welfare fund; the court found that he dishonestly used the insurance proceeds for personal expenses and attorney fees without authorization, although the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish dishonest use of the defense-fund money. Squire also entered undisclosed loan transactions with clients and made false or conflicting statements during the disciplinary investigation.
Procedural history
Disciplinary Counsel filed a five-count second amended complaint alleging violations involving client funds, recordkeeping, fee communications, and business transactions with clients. After stipulations, exhibits, and a hearing before a board panel, the panel found 12 violations, recommended dismissing 13 allegations, and recommended a two-year suspension with one year stayed. The board adopted the panel's report, and the Supreme Court of Ohio sustained the relator's objections in part, found additional misconduct involving misappropriation of Lay's insurance proceeds, and imposed an indefinite suspension.