Disciplinary Counsel v. Ames

2016 Ohio 7830 (Ohio 2016) · Supreme Court of Ohio · November 22, 2016 · No. 2016-0857

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted a consent-to-discipline agreement concerning Arthur Arould Ames’s misappropriation of funds from his late brother’s estate and related misrepresentations in probate court. The court suspended Ames from practicing law for two years, stayed the final six months subject to restitution and no further misconduct, and granted credit for time served under an interim felony suspension.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per curiam; Pfeifer; Lanzinger; French; O'Neill; O'Connor, C.J.; O'Donnell; Kennedy
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
November 22, 2016
Docket number
2016-0857
Procedural posture
Attorney-discipline proceeding on a certified report from the Board of Professional Conduct based on the parties' consent-to-discipline agreement.
Standard of review
The court independently reviewed the consent-to-discipline agreement and determined that the admitted misconduct occurred and that the recommended sanction was appropriate.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Disciplinary Counsel v. Arthur Arould Ames
Disposition
other

Topics

estate administrationprobateremedies

Practice areas

legal ethicsattorney disciplineprobate

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Ames's admitted conduct violated the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.
  2. Whether the parties' recommended sanction of a two-year suspension with the final six months stayed, subject to conditions and credit for the interim suspension, was appropriate.

Holdings

  1. Ames violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) by misappropriating estate funds, making a false probate-court representation, and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty and prejudice to the administration of justice.
  2. A two-year suspension from the practice of law, with the final six months stayed subject to compliance with the restitution order and the requirement that Ames commit no further misconduct, is appropriate; Ames is entitled to credit for time served under his interim felony suspension.

Key quotations

Arthur Arould Ames is hereby suspended from the practice of law for two years with the final six months stayed. (¶ 8)
Ames’s stayed suspension and his reinstatement to the practice of law are conditioned on his compliance with the restitution order entered in his criminal case and on his committing no further misconduct. (¶ 8)

Factual background

Ames, an Ohio attorney and executor of his brother's estate, misappropriated $8,140.39 from the shares of estate proceeds belonging to his two nieces. He falsely represented in a probate-court filing that his nieces had consented to his receiving additional funds. He pleaded guilty to theft by deception, waived a $2,500 executor's fee, and was ordered to pay $5,640.39 in restitution. His misconduct occurred after more than 45 years of practice and without a prior disciplinary record.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court of Ohio imposed an interim felony suspension on Ames after he was convicted of theft by deception for misappropriating funds from his late brother's estate. Disciplinary Counsel then charged him with professional misconduct. The Board of Professional Conduct accepted the parties' consent-to-discipline agreement and recommended that the Supreme Court adopt it in full. The Supreme Court accepted the agreement and imposed the recommended sanction, while three justices would have remanded for reconsideration of credit for the interim suspension.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…