Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Mark William Koehler violated professional-conduct rules by signing and notarizing documents in the names of his secretary and client to obtain estate-related funds. The court imposed a six-month suspension from the practice of law, stayed in its entirety on the condition that Koehler commit no further misconduct. Costs were taxed to Koehler.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Koehler violated Ohio Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(c), (d), and (h) by signing and notarizing an authorization in another person's name and using another person's notary stamp.
- What sanction was appropriate for the stipulated misconduct.
Holdings
- Koehler violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), (d), and (h) by signing his secretary's and his client's names, using his secretary's notary stamp, and presenting the resulting authorization to KeyBank.
- A six-month suspension from the practice of law, stayed in its entirety on the condition that Koehler commit no further misconduct, was appropriate.
Key quotations
“Koehler circumvented, for convenience, the requirements for notarizing a document and thereby perpetrated a fraud upon all those who relied on the document he produced.” (¶ 9)
“Therefore, we suspend Koehler from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. The suspension is stayed on the condition that Koehler commit no further misconduct.” (¶ 10)
Factual background
Koehler represented Dennis Wilson in probating estates, including Wilson's brother's estate. After learning that a KeyBank account payable on death to Wilson was about to be remitted to unclaimed funds, Koehler unsuccessfully sought authorization from Wilson and then executed and notarized an authorization in Wilson's and his secretary's names using his secretary's notary stamp. He obtained the funds, deposited the check into his client trust account, completed Wilson's wife's estate, and sent Wilson the remaining $11,311.36.
Procedural history
Disciplinary counsel filed a complaint charging Koehler with violations of Ohio Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(c), (d), and (h). The parties stipulated to the facts, violations, and sanction. A hearing panel recommended the stipulated sanction, and the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline adopted that recommendation. The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the board's findings and recommendation.