discipline consent to agreement for....$13,500.00 from the sale of the 2004 ford f-150 truck on...
TRANSCRIPT
ORIGINAL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSON
GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO -°F 1114 6In Re:
Complaint against . Case No. 11-016
Christine M. Simon-Seymour . Findings of Fact,Attorney Reg. No. 0043184 Conclusions of Law and
Recommendation of theRespondent Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline ofDisciplinary Counsel the Supreme Court of Ohio
Relator
On March 15, 2011, a hearing panel consisting of Commissioners Judge Lee H.
Hildebrandt, McKenzie K. Davis, and William J. Novak, chair, was appointed to hear this
matter. Relator filed a timely motion to extend by 30 days the period of time for filing a consent
to discipline agreement, and the panel chair granted the motion. A timely consent to discipline
agreement was filed with the Board on June 7, 2011.
The hearing panel finds that this agreement conforms to BCGD Proc. Reg. 11 and the
panel recommends acceptance of the agreement, including the stipulated facts and stipulated
violations prior to February 1, 2007 of DR 1-102(A)(4), DR 1-102(A)(6), and on or after
February 1, 2007 of Prof. Cond. R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4),1.15(a), 1.15(a)(2),1.15(a)(5),
1.15(d), 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h) and concurs in the agreed sanction of a two-year
suspension from the practice of law with six months stayed on the conditions that
respondent: (1) completes five hours of continuing legal education on the management of
trust accounts; and (2) commits no further misconduct.
AUG 1'5, 2011
CLERK OF COURTSUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Board Recommendation
Pursuant to Gov. Bar Rule V, Section 6(L), the Board of Commissioners on Grievances
and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio considered this matter on August 12, 2011. The
Board voted to accept and adopt the agreement entered into by Relator and Respondent. The
agreement sets forth the misconduct and the sanction of a two-year suspension from the practice
of law with six months stayed on conditions, which is the recommendation of the Board. The
Board further recommends that the cost of these proceedings be taxed to Respondent in any
disciplinary order entered, so that execution may issue.
Pursuant to the order of the Board of Commissioners onGrievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio,I hereby certify the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusionsof Law, and Recommendation as those of the Board.
RICHARD .lDgVE, SecretaryBoard of Commissioners onGrievances and Discipline ofthe Supreme Court of Ohio
BEFORE TI3E BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINEOF THE SUPREME COURT OF OIIIO
Christine M. Simon-Seymour; Esq.
Respondent,
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,
Relator.
BOARD NO. 11- i?Lt dY OqA9idISm0NssF3EgUANiiM & BWPtl6dE
AGREEMENT FORCONSENT TODISCIPLINE
Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, and respondent, Christine M. Simon-Seymour, do hereby
stipulate to the adinission of the following facts, violations, niitigating factors, and exhibits and
jointly recormiiend a sanction of a two-year suspension from the practice of law with six montlis
stayed on the conditions that: (1) she complete five hours of continuing legal education (CLE) on
the management of trust accounts and (2) she connnit no further misconduct.
STIPULATED FACTS
1. Respondent, Christine M. Simon-Seymour, was admitted to the practice of law in the State
of Ohio on May 14, 1990. Respondent is subject to the Code of Professional Responsibility,
Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules for the Govemment of the Bar of Ohio.
2. After her adniission, respondent practiced law with her former partner, Attor7iey Daniel
Bond, in the law office known as Bond and Seymour, LLC. The paitnership dissolved on
December 24, 2007, and thereafter, respondent has worked as a sole practitioner in Chardon,
Ohio.
3. On February 9, 2006, the daughter of Teresa Kinat contacted respondent to have her assist
Mrs. Kinat with the guardianship of her husband, Louis Ted Kinat, who was seriously ill.
4. On February 15, 2006, Mr. Kinat passed away.
5. Later that month, Mrs. Kinat met with respondent and hired her to probate Mr. Kinat's
estate.
6. On March 13, 2006, respondent filed a probate case in the Ashtabula County Probate Court
for Mr. Kinat's estate. The case was captioned In re: Estate ofLouis Ted Kinat, Case No.
2006ES001 17.
7. On March 22, 2006, Mrs. Kinat was appointed the administrator of the Kntat estate.
8. At that time, it was respondent's practice to have the executor or administrator of the estate
open a checking account for all estate funds.
9. Respondent did not have Mrs. Kinat open a checking account for the Kinat estate. Instead,
respondent had the Kinat estate funds deposited into respondent's First National Bank
IOLTA account number xxxx2761.
10. Between March 2006 and September 2006, respondent deposited a total of $29,713.06 of
Kinat estate funds into her IOLTA account:
.$489.75 from the City of University Heights on 3/6/06
0 $123A0 from State Auto Insurance on 3/6/06
0 $1,161.23 from the City of University Heights on 3/6/06
0 $13,909.08 from the City of University Heights on. 3/6/06
•$280:00 from United Healthcare Insurance on 3/10/06
.$250.00 fiom the Firefighters Credit Union on 3/15/06
.$13,500.00 from the sale of the 2004 Ford F-150 truck on 5/1/06
11. During that same period, respondent withdrew a total of $22,131.64 from her IOLTA
account on behalf of the Kinat estate:
. Check #705 for $241.00 for filing fees on 3/24/06
2
• Check #706 for $1,600.00 to Teresa Kinat for administrator fees on 3/10/06
• Check #707 for $187.50 for a bond on 3/13/06• Check #708 for $2,603.14 to respondent's law firm for attomey fees on 3/10/06
• Check #719 for $17,500.00 to US Bank to pay off a loan for a 2004 Ford F-150 truck
on 5/1/06
12. Respondent had not received approval from the probate court before she withdrew the
$2,603.14 in attorney fees on March 10, 2006.
13. As a result, on May 2, 2006, respondent should have had $7,581.42 belonging to th.e Kinat
estate in her IOLTA account until September 2006.
1.4. From May 22, 2006 - June 14, 2006; June 22, 2006 - July 17, 2006; July 28, 2006 - July
31, 2006; and August 1, 2006 - September 12, 2006, respondent's IOLTA account balance
was below $7,581.42 by as much as $7,539.68. This indicates that between May 2006 and
Septeniber 2006, respondent misappropriated funds belonging to the Kinat estate for
respondent's purposes or that of others.
15. In September 2006, respondent deposited an additional $9,643.36 in Kinat estate funds into
her IOLTA account:
.$280.00 from United Healthcare Insurance on 9/25/06
.$432.00 from United Healthcare Insurance on 9/25/06
•$8,931.36 from Deferred Compensation on 9/26/06
16. As a result, on September 26, 2006, respondent should have had $17,224.78 belonging to the
Kinat estate in her IOLTA account utitil it was closed.
17. From September 29, 2006 - March 19, 2007; April 30, 2007 - July 31, 2007; and October
15, 2007 - Deceniber 31, 2007, respondent's IOLTA account balance was below $17,
224.78 by as znuch as $17,309.72'.
' On May 23, 2007, respondent overdrew her IOLTA account by $47.94 and the account was debited a$37.00 overdraft
fee the next day.
3
18. On 7anuary 1, 2008, respondent's IOLTA balance dropped to $100.00 and remained there
until May 9, 2008, when respondent withdrew the $100.00 closing her IOLTA account.
19. As a result, respondent misappropriated funds belonging to the Kinat estate for an aggregate
period of 1,645 days by May 9, 2009.
20. Later, on August 8, 2008, the probate court would approve respondent's application for
$4,342.00 in attorney fees. Although it was not stated in her application for fees, respondent
had already withdrawn $2,603.14 in attorney fees on March 10, 2006, by IOLTA check
#708. As a result, respondent was only owed $1,738.86 in attorney fees, thereby, reducing
the unaccounted portion of the Kinat estate funds from $17, 224.78 to $15,485.95.
21. At the outset of the representation, Mrs. Kinat had begun receiving bills in Mr. Kinat's name
and had told respondent that she wanted to pay all the estate debts with the estate assets.
22. In response to Mrs. Kinat's concerns about Mr. Kinat's bills, respondent had advised Mrs.
Kinat not to pay any of the estate debts because the estate was purportedly insolvent.
Respondent had then told Mrs. Kinat that respondent would negotiate down the balances and
then distribute the reduced amounts to the creditors.
23. . On August 1, 2008, respondent filed in the probate court a Receipts and Disbursements
statenient representing that the Kinat estate had received a total of $51,555.85 in assets and
falsely claimed that respondent had disbursed the assets and had paid off all the estate debts
identified therein.
24. One of the estate debts that respondent stated was paid in the August 1, 2008 Receipts and
Bisburseiuents statement wasa mortgage from the Firefighters Corrununity Credit Union
(FCCU) in the amount of $9,727.52.
4
25. Respondent's Receipts and Disbmsements statement is false because respondent did not pay
off the FCCU mortgage by August 1, 2008.
26. Over two months later, respondent paid the $9,727.52 FCCU mortgage balance from ber
personal funds, thereby, reducing the unaccounted portion of the Kinat estate funds from
$15,485.95 to $5,758.43.
27. In addition to the FCCU mortgage, respondent's August 1, 2008 Receipts and
Disbursements statement stated that she had made disbursements of $418.38 to MBNA
Credit Card Services and $389.65 to C.J. Critical Care on behalf of the Kinat estate.
28. Again, respondent's Receipts and Disbursements statement is false because respondent
never paid these debts on behalf of the Kinat estate.
29. In addition to the above debts, respondent's August 1, 2008 Receipts and Disbursements
statement stated that she had made the following disbursements on behalf of the Kinat
estate:
• National City Bank Credit Card: $ 811.88
• AAA.Fuiancial Services: $ 457.38
• BP Credit Card Services: $1,415.23
• GE Money Bank Credit Card: $1,047.52
• HSBC Credit Card: $ 482.94
• ICeyBank Credit Card: $ 230.77
30. Again, respondent's Receipts and Disburseinents statement is false because respondent
never paid these credit card debts on bebalf of the Kinat estate.
31. On August 27, 2008, the probate court filed an entry approving the final settlement and
drstribution of-the4Cin2testate-and closed the estate.
32. Respondeit never told Mrs. Kinat that the Kinat estate was closed on August 27, 2008.
5
33. Mrs. Kinat leam.ed that the Kinat estate was closed when she called the probate court to
check the status of the estate in September 2009.
34. From the spring of 2009 to January 2010, Mrs. Kinat kept asking respondent for proo
the debts of the Kinat estate were paid but respondent would not provide any proof.
35. On January 9, 2010, Mrs. Kinat went to respondent's office to obtain proof that the estate
debt were paid.
36. At that time, respondent provided Mrs. Kinat with copies of documents none of which
showed that the credit card balances were paid or even reduced.
37. Before leaving respondent's office, Mrs. Kinat asked respondent for copies of the cancelled
checks and a redacted copy of respondent's IOLTA stateinents witl} only the estate
infonnation visible. Respondent did not provide redacted statements or copies of the
cancelled cliecks.
38. On January 11, 2010, Mrs. Kinat finally called the credit card companies listed in paragraph
32 of this Complaint and spoke with representatives fi•om all except BP Credit Card
Services. Each representative advised Mrs. Kinat that the respective credit card balance had
not been paid.
39. Mrs. Kinat told respondent that the credit cards had not been paid but respondent never sent
any payment.
40. As for the administration of estate assets, one of the assets that respondent identified in the
August 1, 2008 Receipts and Disbursements statement was a 1986 Chevry truck with a
si_owpLmv.
41. Despite Mrs. Kinat's repeated requests, it took respondent until December 2009, over a year
later, to have the title of the Chevy truck transferred to Mrs. Kinat's name.
6
42. On Febmary 4, 2010, Mrs. Kinat filed a grievance against respondent concerning this matter
with relator's office.
43. On March 10, 2010, Mrs. Kinat terminated respondent's representation.
44. On June 14, 2010, respondent sent $6,872.30 by certified check to Mrs. Kinat as a refund of
the remaining proceeds belonging to the Kinat estate. This amount exceeds the $5,758.43
unaccounted portion of the Kinat estate funds and respondent cannot reconcile this specific
refand amount with her records of the assets received by and disbursed from the Kinat
estate.
45. On December 18, 2010, Mrs. Kinat deposited the $6,872.30 certified check into her bank
account and the deposited funds were finally available on January 21, 2011.
46. Respondent never provided Mrs. Kinat an accurate accounting of the Kinat estate.
47. Since February 1, 2007, respondent has not niaintained client ledgers conceming the funds
in her IOLTA account, pursuant to Prof. Cond. Rule 1.1.5(a)(2)(i) - (iv).
48. Since February 1, 2007, respondent has not perfomled a monthly reconciliation of her
IOLTA account as described by Prof. Cond. Rule 1..15(a)(5).
STIPULATED VIOLATIONS
49. Relator and respondent stipulate and agree that respondent's conduct before February 1,
2007, described herein violates the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically: DR 1-
102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation); and DR 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice taw):
50. Relator and respondent stipulate and agree that respondent's conduct on or after February 1,
2007, described herein violates the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically: Rule
7
1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client);
Rule 1.4(a)(3) (a lawyer shalI keep the client reasonabl), informed about the status of the
matter); Rule 1.4(a)(4) ( a lawyer shall comply as soon as practicable with reasonable
requests for infonnation from the client); Rule 1.15(a) (a lawyer shall keep client funds in
the lawyer's possession separate from the lawyer's funds); Rule 1.15(a)(2) (a lawyer shall
maintain a record for each client on whose behalf funds are held); Rule 1.15(a)(5) (a lawyer
shall perform and retain a monthly reconciliation of the funds in hi.s trust account); Rule
1.15(d) (a lawyer shall promptly deliver funds or other property that the client is entitled to
receive); Rule 1.15(d) (a lawyer shall proinptly render a full accomiting regarding such
funds or property held by the lawyer upon request); Rule 3.3(a)(1) (a lawyer shall not make
a knowingly false statement to the tribunal); Rule 8.4(c) (a lawyer shall not engage in
conduct involving dishonesty, fi-aud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and Rule 8.4(h) (a
lawyer shall not engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness
to practice law).
STIPULATED MITIGATION
51. Relator and respondent stipulate to the following niitigating factors as listed in
BCGD Proc. Reg. § IO(B)(2):
• an absence of a prior disciplinary record, and
• a cooperative attitude toward these disciplinary proceedings.
SUPUi,^s'F^L^ ^v-REC.^,̀ARu^EAT13EL`S?NICUQN?
52. Relator and respondent agree and recommend that the appropriate sanction based upon the
stipulations and exhibits is a two-year suspension from the practice of law with six months
8
stayed on the conditions that: (1) she complete five hours of continuing legal education
(CLE) on the inanagement of trust accounts and (2) she commit no further misconduct.
STIPULATED EKHIBITS
Jl. Attorney Registration Record for respondeat
J2. Transcript of respondent's deposition taken on November 30, 2010
B. Grievance of Teresa Kinat
J4. Docket Sheet for In re: Estate ofLouis Ted Kinat, Case No. 2006ES001 17
J5. Letter from respondent's counsel to relator dated September 23, 2010
J6. March 2006 IOLTA bank records for respondent
P. May 2006 IOLTA bank records for respondent
J8. June 2006 IOLTA bank records.for respondent
J9. July 2006 TOLTA bank records for respondent
JIO. August 2006 IOLTA bank records for respondent
Jl 1, September 2006 IOLTA bank records for respondent
J12. October 2006 IOLTA bank records for respondent
J13. November 2006 IOLTA bank records for respondent
314, December 2006 IOLTA bank records for respondent
J15. January 2007 IOLTA bank records for respondent
J 16. February 2007 IOLTA bank records for respondent
J17. March 2007 IOLTA bank records for respondent
J18. Apri12007 IOLTA bank records for respondent
J19. June 2007 IOLTA bank records for respondent
J20. July 2007 IOLTA bank records for respondent
J21. October 2007 IOLTA bank records for respondent
J22. November 2007 IOLTA bank records for respondent
J23. -Dec2noer-20"vTIOL-,̂A bank-records-fer-r°spondent
J24. January 2008 IOLTA bank records for respondent
J25. February 2008 IOLTA bank records for respondent
J26. March 2008 IOLTA bank records for respondent
9
J27. Apri12008 IOLTA bank records for respondent
J28. May 2008 IOLTA bank records for respondent
J29. Application for Attorney Fees filed by respondent in In re: Estate of Louis Ted Kinat,Case No. 2006ES001 17
3`30. Receipts and Disbursements filed by respondent in In re: Estate ofLouis Ted Kinat,
Case No. 2006ES001 17
J31. Letter from respondent to Attorney Mathew Burg delivered on October 28, 2008
J32. Letter from respondent to Judge Hague dated. June 10, 2010
J33. Termination letter from Teresa Kinat to respondent
J34. Letter from Attomey Bevaclc-Ciani to relator dated January 11, 2011
CONCLUSION
The above are stipulated to and entered into by agreement by the undersigned parties on
Jonathan E. C)ughlan (0026424)Disciplinary' unselRelator
Philip A. King (0071895)Assistant Disciplinary Counsel250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 325Columbus, OH 43215614-461-0256-COZf nsel'-, J'oY-RelaiYiY
a, l!J w. )t) lfi N19 =^o9C19wi J
Christine M. Siinon-Seyinour, Esq. (43828)109 Main Street 2nd FloorChardon, OH 44024Re.ttrondent
Abraham Cantor, Esq,Johrmycake Cotmnons9930 Johnnycalce Ridge Road, Suite 4FMentor, OH 44060Counsel foY Respondent
10
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIOIn re:
Complaint against
Christine M. Simon-Seymour, Esq.109 Main Street 2nd FloorChardon, OH 44024
Attorney Registration No. (0043828)
Respondent,
^EP i
BOARD C.If0hl GR!EVP,tiCES 8 SD
COMPLAINT AND CERTIFICATE
(Rule V of the Supreme Court Rules forthe Government of the Bar of Ohio
Disciplinary Counsel250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 325Columbus, Ohio 43215-7411
Relator. ^^^ M1SglONERSgO^R® OF COM & 01SCIPLINE
ON GRIEV ANCES
Now comes the relator and alleges that Christine M. Simon-Seymour, an Attonaey at
Law, duly admitted to the practice of law in the State of Ohio is guilty of the following
misconduct:
1. Respondent, Christine M. Simon-Seymour, was admitted to the practice of law in the
State of Ohio on May 14, 1990. Respondent is subject to the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules for the Govemment of the
Bar of Ohio.
2. After her admission, respondent practiced law with her former partner, Attorney Daniel
Zmadr;ntl,e la-wofficjelcnow-n_asRondancLS(-ymaur,_LLC. The tLrtnershin slissolved on
December 24, 2007, and thereafter, respondent has worked as a sole practitioner in
Chardon, Ohio.
3. On February 9, 2006, Teresa Kinat's daughter contacted respondent to have her assist
Mrs. Kinat with the guardianship of her husUand, Louis Ted Kinat, who was seriously ill.
4. On Febrliary 15, 2006, Mr. Kinat passed away.
5. Later that month, Mrs. Kinat met with respondent and hired her to probate Mr. Kinat's
estate.
6. On March 13, 2006, respondent filed a probate case in the Ashtabula County Probate
Court for Mr. Kinat's estate. The case was captioned In re: Estate ofLouis Ted Kinat,
Case No. 2006ES001 17.
7. On March 22, 2006, Mrs. Kinat was appointed the administrator of the Kinat estate.
8. At that time, it was respondent's practice to have the executor or administrator of the
estate open a checking account for the estate to deposit the estate funds.
9. Respondent did not have Mrs. Kinat open a checking account for the estate. histead,
respondent insisted that the Kinat estate funds be deposited in respondent's First National
Bank IOLTA account number xxxx276 1.
10. Between March 2006 and Septeinber 2006, respondent deposited a total of $29,713.06 of
Kinat estate funds into her IOLTA account:
•$489.75 from the City of University Heights on 3/6/06
•$123.00 fiom State Auto Insiuance on 3/6/06
•$1,161.23 from the City of University Heights on 3/6/06
•$13,909.08 from the City of University Heights on 3/6/06
•$280.00 fiom United Healthcare Insurance on 3/10/06
•$250.00 from the Firefighters Credit Union on 3/15/06
•$13,500.00 from the sale of the 2004 Ford F-150 thuck on 5/l/06
11. During that same period, respondent withdrew a total of $22,131.64 from her IOLTA
accoiuit on behalf of the Kinat estate:
• Check #705 for $241.00 for filing fees on 3/24/06
2
• Check #706 for $1,600.00 to Teresa Kinat for administrator fees on 3/10/06
• Check #707 for $187.50 for a bond on 3/13/06
• Check #708 for $2,603.14 to respondent's law fiim for attorney fees on 3/10/06
• Check #719 for $17,500.00 to US Bank to pay off a loan for a 2004 Ford F-150
truck on 5/1/06
12. Respondent had not received approval firom the probate court before she withdrew the
$2,603.14 in attorney fees on March 10, 2006.
13. As a result, on May 2, 2006, respondent should have had $7,581.42 belonging to the
Kinat estate in her IOLTA account until September 2006.
14. From May 22, 2006 - June 14, 2006; June 22, 2006 - July 17, 2006; July 28, 2006 - July
31, 2006; and August 1, 2006 - September 12, 2006, respondent's IOLTA account
balance was below $7,581.42 by as much as $7,539.68. This indicates that between May
2006 and September 2006, respondent misappropriated fimds belonging to the Kinat
estate for respondent's purposes or that of others.
15. In September 2006, respondent deposited a total of $9,643.36 in Kinat estate funds into
her IOLTA account:
•$280.00 from United Healthcare Insurance on 9/25/06
•$432.00 from United Healthcare Insurance on 9/25/06
•$8,931.36 from Defer-red Compensation on 9/26/06
16. As a result, on September 26, 2006, respondent should have had $17,224.78 belonging to
the Kinat estate in her IOLTA account until it was closed.
17. From September 29, 2006 - March 19, 2007; April 30, 2007 - July 31, 2007; and
Qctflher 15, 2007 -December 31 > ^ -2007, iespondent's IOLTA account balance was below
$17, 224.78 by as much as $17,309.72'.
' On May 23, 2007, respondent overdrew her IOLTA account by $47.94 and the account was debited a $37.00
overdraft fee the next day.
3
18. On January 1, 2008, respondent's IOLTA balance dropped to $100.00 and remained there
until May 9, 2008, when respondent withdi-ew the $100.00 closing her IOLTA account.
19. As a result, respondent misappropriated funds belongiilg to the Kinat estate for an
aggregate period of 1,645 days by May 9, 2009.
20. Later, on August 8, 2008, the probate court would approve respondent's application for
$4,342.00 in attoTney fees, $2,603.14 of which she had already withdrawn on March 10,
2006, by IOLTA check #708. As a result, respondent was only owed $1,738.86 in
attomey fees, thereby, reducing the unaccounted portion of the Kinat estate funds fiom
$17, 224.78 to $15,485.95.
21. At the outset of the representation, Mrs. Kinat had begun receiving bills in Mr. Kinat's
name and had told respondent that she wanted to pay all the estate debts with the estate
assets.
22. In response to Mrs. Kinat's concerns about Mr. Kinat's bills, respondent had advised
Mrs. Kinat not to pay any of the estate debts because the estate was purportedly
insolvent. Respondent had then told Mrs. Kinat that respondent would negotiate down
the balances and then distribute the reduced amounts to the creditors.
23. On August 1, 2008, respondent filed in the probate court a Receipts and Disbursements
statement representing that the Kinat estate had received a total of $51,555.85 in assets
and that respondent had disbursed the assets and had paid off the estate debts identified
therein.
24. On Aug ist27, 20Q8, the probate court filed _aii_entry_ apgroving_the_fiiIal sottlQnient _alis3
distribution of the Kinat estate and closed the estate.
25. Respondent never told Mrs. Kinat that the Kinat estate was closed on August 27, 2008.
4
26. Mrs. Kinat learned that the Kinat estate was closed when she called the probate court to
check the stah.is of the estate over a year later.
27. One of the estate debts that respondent stated was paid in the August 1, 2008 Receipts
and Disbursements statement was a mortgage from the Firefighters Community Credit
Union (FCCU) in the amount of $9,727.52.
28. Respondent's Receipts and Disbursements statement is false because respondent did not
pay off the FCCU mortgage by August 1, 2008.
29. Over two months later, respondent paid the $9,727.52 FCCU mortgage balance from her
personal funds, thereby, reducing the unaccounted portion of the Kinat estate funds from
$15,485.95 to $5,758.43.
30. In addition to the FCCU mortgage, respondent's August 1, 2008 Receipts and
Disbursements statement stated that she had made disbursements of $418.38 to MBNA
Credit Card Services and $389.65 to C.J. Critical Care on behalf of the Kinat estate.
31. Again, respondent's Receipts and Disbursements statement is false because respondent
never paid these debts on behalf of the Kinat estate.
32. In addition to the above debts, respondent's August 1, 2008 Receipts and Disbursements
statement stated that she had made the following disbursements on behalf of the Kinat
estate:
• National City Bank Credit Card: $ 811.88
• AAA Financial Services: $ 457.38
• BP Credit Card Services: $1,415.23
• GE Money Bank Credit Card: $1,047.52
• HSBC Credit Card: $ 482.94
• KeyBank Credit Card: $ 230.77
5
33. Again, respondent's Receipts and Disbursements statement is false because respondent
never paid these credit card debts on behalf of the Kinat estate.
34. From the spring of 2009 to January 2010, Mrs. Kinat kept asking respondent for proof
that the debts of the Kinat estate were paid but respondent would not provide any proof.
35. On January 9, 2010, Mrs. Kinat went to respondent's office to obtain proof that the estate
debt were paid.
36. At that time, respondent provided Mrs. Kinat with copies of documents none of which
showed that the credit card balances were paid or even reduced.
37. Before leaving respondent's office, Mrs. Kinat asked respondent for copies of the
cancelled checks and a redacted copy of respondent's IOLTA statements with only the
estate infomlation visible. Respondent did not provide redacted statements or copies of
the cancelled checks.
38. On January 11, 2010, Mrs. Kinat finally called the credit card companies listed in
paragraph 32 of this Complaint and spoke with representatives from all except BP Credit
Card Services. Each representative advised Mrs. Kinat that the respective credit card
balance had not been paid.
39. Mrs. Kinat told respondent that the credit cards had not been paid but respondent never
sent any payment.
40. As for the administration of estate assets, one of the assets that respondent identified in
the August 1, 2008 Receipts and Disbursements statement was a 1986 Chevy ti-uck with a
5llowlTlow.
41. Despite Mrs. Kinat's repeated requests, it took respondent until December 2009, over a
year later, to have the title of the Chevy tnick transferred to Mrs. Kinat's name.
6
42. On March 10, 2010, Mrs. Kinat temiinated respondent's representation.
43. On June 14, 2010, respondent sent $6,872.30 by certified check to Mrs. Kinat as a refimd
of the remaining proceeds belonging to the Kinat estate.
44. Respondent cannot reconcile this specific refund amount with her records of the assets
received by and disbursed from the Kinat estate.
45. On Deceniber 18, 2010, Mrs. Kinat deposited the $6,872.30 certified check into her banlc
account and the deposited fimds were finally available on January 21, 2011.
46. Respondent never provided Mrs. Kinat an acctu-ate accounting of the Kinat estate and is
yet to return the remaining proceeds of the Kinat estate.
47. Since Febi-uary 1, 2007, respondent has not maintained client ledgers conceming the
fimds in her IOLTA account, pursuant to Prof. Cond. R. 1.15(a)(2)(i) - (iv).
48. Since Febniary 1, 2007, respondent has not perfonned a monthly reconciliation of her
IOLTA account as described by Prof. Cond. R. 1.15(a)(5).
49. Respondent's conduct before Febiuary 1, 2007, described herein violates the Code of
Professional Responsibility, specifically: DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and DR 1-102(A)(6)
(a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law).
50. Respondent's conduct on or after Febntary 1, 2007, described herein violates the Ohio
Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically: Rule 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable
-di-l-igence as°.dpre.:.ptness :n-iepresenting-ac^:e3.t);Rule IA (a)(3)-(alaveyershallkeep
the client reasonably infonned about the status of the matter); Rule 1.4(a)(4) ( a lawyer
shall comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for infonnation from the.
7
client); Rule 1.15(a) (a lawyer shall keep client funds in the lawyer's possession separate
fi-om the lawyer's funds); Rule 1.15(a)(2) (a lawyer shall maintain a record for each client
on whose behalf funds are held); Rule 1.15(a)(5) (a lawyer shall perfonn and retain a
monthly reconciliation of the funds in his trust account); Rule 1.15(d) (a lawyer shall
promptly deliver fiinds or other property that the client is entitled to receive); Rule
1.15(d) (a lawyer shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such fimds or
property held by the lawyer upon request); Rule 3.3(a)(1) (a lawyer shall not make a
laiowingly false statement to the tribunal); Rule 8.4(c) (a lawyer shall not engage in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and Rule 8.4(h) (a
lawyer shall not engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's
fitness to practice law).
8
CONCLUSION
Wherefore, pursuant to Gov. Bar R. V, the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rules
of Professional Conduct, relator alleges that respondent is chargeable with misconduct; therefore,
relator requests that respondent be disciplined pursuant to Rule V of the Rules of the
Government of the Bar of Ohio.
Jonathaii E. Cough^arf(0026424)DiscipIiiiary Co,
Philip A. KinA (0071895)Assistant Disciplinary Counsel250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 325Columbus, Ohio 43215-7411614.461.0256
9
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned, Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, of the Office of
Disciplinaiy Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio hereby certifies that Philip A. King is duly
authorized to represent relator in the premises and has accepted the responsibility of prosecuting
the coiuplaint to its conclusion. After investigation, relator believes reasonable cause exists to
wanant a hearing on such complaint.
Dated: January 31, 2011
JonathaZE. Cough^'n, Disciplinary Counsel
Gov. Bar R. V, § 4(I) Requirenieuts for FElialg a Conaplaint.
(1) Definition. "Conlplaint" means a fornial written allegation of misconduct or mentalillness of a person designated as the respondent.
(7) Complaint Filed by Certified Grievance Conunittee. Six copies of all con7plaints shall befiled with the Secretary of the Board. Complaints filed by a Certified Grievance Committee shallbe filed in the name of the coinmittee as relator. The complaint shall not be accepted for filingunless signed by one or more attorneys admitted to the practice of law in Ohio, who shall becounsel for the relator. The complaint shall be acconipanied by a written certification, signed bythe president, secretary, or chair of the Certified Grievance Committee, that the counsel areauthorized to represent the relator in the action and have accepted the responsibility ofprosecuting the complaint to conclusion. The certification shall constitute the authorization ofthe counsel to represent the relator in the action as fiilly and completely as if designated andappointed by order of the Supreme Court with all the privileges and immunities of an officer ofthe Supreme Court. The complaint also may be signed by the grievant.(8) Complaint Filed by Disciplinary Counsel. Six copies of all conlplaints shall be filed withthe Secretary of the Board. Complaints filed by the Disciplinary Counsel shall be filed in thename of the Disciplinary Counsel as relator.
(9)___S_ervice. IZnon th^filirig Qf a complaint with the Secretary__of the Board, the relator shallforward a copy of the complaint to the Disciplinary Counsel, the Certified Gr-ievance Committeeof the Ohio State Bar Association, the local bar association, and any Certified GrievanceCommittee serving the county or counties in which the respondent resides and maintains anoffice and for the county from which the complaint arose.
10