Docstoc

Next on the counter_ 08723 Akron Bar Association vs - The Ohio ...-ag

Document Sample
Next on the counter_ 08723 Akron Bar Association vs - The Ohio ...-ag Powered By Docstoc
					Supreme Court of Ohio
January 19, 2011
Case No. 2010-1693


>> THANK YOU, COUNSELOR. OUR NEXT CASE IS 10-1693.

>> GOOD MORNING. MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. AND I AM APPEARING ON
BEHALF OF DEA LYNN CHRACTER. THIS CASE STARTED MORE THAN A
YEAR BEFORE I WAS RETAINED AS COUNSEL. BY THE TIME THERE WAS 20
DIFFERENT TOWNS. SEVERAL OF THE ACCOUNTS WERE RELATED TO ONE
PERSON. THERE WERE THREE COUNTS RELATING TO RHONDA FRIEDMAN.
BEFORE WE BEGIN THE HEARINGS, WE BIFURCATED ACCOUNT #20 FOUR
DEALS WITH HER CRIMINAL CONVICTION. AND THAT WAS BIFURCATED
BECAUSE OF THE APPEAL COUNTS. THIS IS A $750 MATTER. THERE WERE
STIPULATIONS AS TO WHAT SHE DID. FOR INSTANCE WHAT SHE DID
WRONG WAS SHE DID PROVIDE THE SERVICES FOR WHICH SHE WAS PAID
$750, BUT SHE DID NOT PUT THE $750 INTO AN ACCOUNT AND SHE SPENT
IT AT HER LEISURE. SHE ALSO DID NOT MAINTAIN INSURANCE, NOR DID
SHE TELL HER CLIENT THAT. SHE ALSO DID NOT MAINTAIN AN ACCOUNT
AT THAT POINT IN TIME. SHE ALSO HELD HERSELF OUT TO BE A LAWYER
WITH CHARACTER AND CHARACTER ASSOCIATES. THOSE ARE THE
THINGS THAT SHE DID WRONG IN THAT CASE. SHE HAD KNOWLEDGE OF
THOSE THINGS. SHE DID NOT HIDE THOSE THINGS. THE COURT CASE
DEALS WITH THE BANKRUPTCY WITH MR. ROE. THAT RESULTED FROM
THREE DIFFERENT CASES BEING GENERATED FROM THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT IN QUICK SUCCESSION THAT WENT TO ANOTHER JUDGE. AS A
RESULT OF THAT, THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT IS THE CASE WAS
DISMISSED. THERE WERE ISSUES OVER FILING FEES. ALL OF THE FILING
FEES WERE PAID. IN THE BANKRUPTCY THAT WAS PENDING ANOTHER
COURT WAS NOT DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FOLLOWED THROUGH.
5, 6, AND 7 WERE DISMISSED BY THE HEARING PANEL. EIGHT IN NINE BY
THE RELAY HEARING BEFORE THE HEARING. TWO COUNTS RELATED TO
JEWEL JACKSON. THE FIRST WAS THE POST ACCRETIVE DIVORCE WORK,
BUT THERE WAS OTHER WORK DONE IN ADDITION TO THE POST-DECREE
DIVORCE WORK. WHEN SHE CAME TO MY CLIENT SHE HAD RECEIVED $83
FROM HER DIVORCE. SHE HAD PAID HER PRIOR LAWYER $20,000 WHERE
THEY HAD A JUDGMENT FOR $20,000 AGAINST HER. AND THERE WERE
MULTIPLE ASSETS, WHICH WERE NEVER DISCOVERED PRIOR TO THE TIME
OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND THAT DIVORCE. THAT BROUGHT CYNTHIA
ANOTHER LAWYER. THEY PROCEEDED TO DO A GREAT AMOUNT OF
WORK. THE PROBLEM MY CLIENT HAD ISSUE CANNOT SHOW THE
RECORDS. WHEN SHE DID SHOW UP AT THE BAR ASSOCIATION, SHE HAD A
BOX OF VERY UNORGANIZED RECORDS. A GREAT NUMBER OF THE
RECORDS WERE IN THE POSSESSION OF HER CO-COUNSEL WHO PRIOR TO
THIS POINT IN TIME WAS DISBARRED BY THIS COURT AND I BELIEVE SHE
IS SUFFERING SEVERE DEPRESSION AT THIS POINT. WE MAY NUMEROUS
Transcripts of oral arguments before the Supreme Court of Ohio are produced by National Captioning
Institute, which has contracted with Ohio Government Telecommunications to provide closed-captioning of
all broadcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments since January 10, 2006. These text files are not official
records of the Supreme Court, and the Court does not vouch for their accuracy. Video of all oral
arguments at the Court since March 2004 is available at the Court’s Web site,
www.supremecourtofohio.gov .
Supreme Court of Ohio
January 19, 2011
Case No. 2010-1693
ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT HER. SHE HAD THE MAJORITY OF THE RECORDS
IN TIME SHEETS. IN LOOKING WHETHER THE FEE WAS ACCEPTABLE, YOU
HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT IS DONE. WITHOUT THE RECORDS AND BILL,
THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THERE WAS NO THE AGREEMENT. WHEN
MISS JACKSON CAME TO MY CLIENT, SHE WAS PENNILESS AND BEING
EVICTED AND WAS IN TERRIBLE SHAPE. SHE HAD NO MONEY TO PAY MY
CLIENTS. THIS IS ONE OF THE PROBLEMS MY CLIENT HAS HAD THROUGH
THE COURSE OF HER CAREER. AS A RESULT OF THAT, SHE IS GROSSLY
OVERWORKED. SHE IS, I WILL TELL YOU, EXTREMELY AND ORGANIZE.
SHE HAS MOVED HER OFFICE MULTIPLE TIMES. SHE HAD FILES IN
DIFFERENT PLACES. IN ONE PARTICULAR INSTANCE THE FILE SHE HAD IN
HER OFFICE IN ANGORA WERE REMOVED. IN ANOTHER PARTICULAR CASE
SHE HAD FILES AND A CAR WHICH WAS REPOSSESSED AND THE FILES
WERE DESTROYED. IN ANOTHER CASE YOU HAVE FILES AND A HOME
WHICH WAS TORN DOWN. IN THE LONG AND SHORT OF THE ISSUE THAT
JEWEL JACKSON A TOTAL OF $90,000 IN BENEFITS BECAUSE OF HER
DISCOVERY OF TWO DIFFERENT ASSETS, RETIREMENT ASSETS, WHICH
TOOK EXTENSIVE DISCOVERY AND TOOK EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION,
BECAUSE THE FORMER HUSBAND WAS NOT FORTHCOMING WITH ANY OF
THIS INFORMATION. UNFORTUNATELY SHE CANNOT SHOW ALL THE TIME
AND EFFORT THAT SHE PUT INTO IT, BUT JEWELL JACKSON BENEFITED
SIGNIFICANTLY FROM MY CLIENT'S INVOLVEMENT.

>> IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THERE IS A MULTIPLE PAGE STIPULATION BY
YOUR CLIENT IN THE DISCIPLINARY COUNCIL. WE ARE HERE TO
DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION, BECAUSE THAT IS SOMETHING
THAT WAS NOT ABLE TO BE STIPULATED. THE MITIGATION AND ANY
OTHER FACTORS HERE ARE AGREED UPON AS WELL. THE FACT THAT SHE
IS UNDERGOING A CERTAIN LEVEL OF PUNISHMENT AT THIS POINT AND
THE MULTIPLE COUNTS AS EVIDENCED BY THE STIPULATION. WHAT WE
ARE HERE TO DECIDE UPON IS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS, NOT THE
VIOLATIONS, BECAUSE THOSE ARE STIPULATED TO. THAT IS WHAT I
WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOU ADDRESS WITH YOUR REMAINING TIME IS THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF A SANCTION FOR YOUR CLIENTS.

>> FIRST OF ALL, THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW MUST BE
BASED UPON CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. I BELIEVE THE PANEL
DID A GOOD JOB. THEY WORK VERY HARD. A LOT OF TIMES -- WHAT I AM
LOOKING AT IS THE TOTALITY OF WHAT WE HAVE. YES, WE OF A LARGE
VOLUME OF PEOPLE, BUT THERE WAS AN AWFUL LOT OF MUD THROWN
AGAINST THE WALL AND HALF OF THE CASES TURNED OUT BEING
DISMISSED. WE HAVE 10 COUNTS THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH, AND
WHEN I AM LOOKING AT THIS, I HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW DID SHE STEAL
FROM MANY OF THESE CLIENTS? DID SHE BENEFIT SUBSTANTIALLY
Transcripts of oral arguments before the Supreme Court of Ohio are produced by National Captioning
Institute, which has contracted with Ohio Government Telecommunications to provide closed-captioning of
all broadcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments since January 10, 2006. These text files are not official
records of the Supreme Court, and the Court does not vouch for their accuracy. Video of all oral
arguments at the Court since March 2004 is available at the Court’s Web site,
www.supremecourtofohio.gov .
Supreme Court of Ohio
January 19, 2011
Case No. 2010-1693
ECONOMICALLY FROM HER DEALINGS WITH ANY OF THESE CLIENTS? NO.
WERE THE CLIENTS ACTUALLY HURT IN ANY WAY? NO. THERE ARE
PEOPLE THAT COME BACK AFTER THE FACT AND SAID I HAVE PAID TOO
MUCH MONEY. AND IT TAKES A DAY TO GO DOWN FOR ANY HEARING
AND THAT REQUIRES A DAY SPENT BY AN ATTORNEY WHEN THE CANNOT
DEVOTE THEIR TIME TO ANYTHING ELSE. I HAVE TO ALSO POINT OUT
THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS PERSONALLY GOING ON IN HER LIFE.

>> I AM SLOW HERE. YOU TELL US HE OBJECTED TO A $20,000 FEE.

>> YES.

>> YOUR JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT IS THAT YOUR CLIENT HAD TO SPEND
A WHOLE DAY. AND

>> EVERY TIME MY CLIENT OR ANOTHER LAWYER WENT TO MIAMI FROM
CLEVELAND AN ENTIRE DAY WAS SPENT. IT WAS NOT ONE OCCASION, IT
WAS MULTIPLE LOCATIONS. THE RESULTS, ALTHOUGH IT DID NOT GO TO
TRIAL, DID NOT HAPPEN DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION. HE ADMITTED HE
HAD NO IDEA WHAT HIS LAWYERS DID.

>> I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU.

>> THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS NONE OF THESE CLIENTS SUFFERED
SUBSTANTIALLY. SHE DID NOT RUN A PRACTICE WELL FROM A
MANAGEMENT STANDPOINT. SHE ACKNOWLEDGED AS OF NOT HAVING
AN ACCOUNT MOST OF THE TIME, AT NOT HAVING INSURANCE MOST OF
THE TIME, NOT NOTIFYING CLIENTS MOST OF THE TIME, BUT SHE DID NOT
STEAL THE FUNDS. NO ONE IS COMPLAINING SHE STOLE ANY FUNDS. SHE
MADE $12,000 WITHIN ONE MONTH, AND SHE INVESTED A SECOND $25,000,
AND BECAUSE OF MARKET SOURCES AND MARKET FACTORS IN THE
REAL-ESTATE MARKET AT THE TIME, THAT INVESTMENT BASICALLY WAS
LOST.

>> DID I HEAR YOU SAY THE CONVICTIONS ARE NOT PART OF THIS
MATTER? SHE PLED GUILTY TO 10 FELONY COUNTS. THE APPEAL IS STILL
PENDING?

>> SHE ON HER OWN HAS OPTED TO CONTINUE THE APPEAL TO THIS
COURT. THOSE ISSUES WERE NOT DECIDED HERE AND SHE IS ON AN
INTERIM SUSPENSION BECAUSE OF THAT CONVICTION. I BELIEVE THE
FACTS OF THIS CASE SHOW WE HAVE A VERY DISORGANIZED PERSON. WE
HAVE A PERSON WHO PLAYED FAST AND LOOSE BECAUSE SHE WAS
OVERWHELMED WITH WHAT WAS GOING ON IN HER LIFE. I DO NOT THINK
Transcripts of oral arguments before the Supreme Court of Ohio are produced by National Captioning
Institute, which has contracted with Ohio Government Telecommunications to provide closed-captioning of
all broadcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments since January 10, 2006. These text files are not official
records of the Supreme Court, and the Court does not vouch for their accuracy. Video of all oral
arguments at the Court since March 2004 is available at the Court’s Web site,
www.supremecourtofohio.gov .
Supreme Court of Ohio
January 19, 2011
Case No. 2010-1693
ANY OF THE SHOW'S ANY INTRINSIC CHARACTER DEFECTS, WHICH
CANNOT BE OVERCOME OR REHABILITATED. IF THERE WERE INSENSATE
CHARACTER DEFECTS AND NOT JUST PRACTICES, WHICH REPORT, IT
CANNOT BE REHABILITATED, CANNOT BE CORRECTED, I WOULD NOT BE
STANDING HERE BEFORE YOU. I BELIEVE SHE CAN BE REHABILITATED. I
BELIEVE SHE CAN BE SUPERVISED AND BE TAUGHT HOW TO MANAGE A
LAW PRACTICE CORRECTLY, HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT SHE HAS THINGS
IN WRITING FOR HER PROTECTION AND THAT OF HER CLIENTS. SHE MADE
SOME VERY BAD DECISIONS HERE, AND SHE WAS COOPERATIVE. IT IS
POINTED OUT IN THE RECORD THAT SHE APPEARED FOR ONE DEPOSITION,
BUT SHE APPEARED FOR TWO OTHERS WHEN I WAS ON THE CASE. THE
FACT THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE THE RECORD, SHE EXPLAINED. THE FACT
THAT SHE CANNOT FIND THE RECORDS, WHICH ARE LOST, IS NOT AN
INDICATION OF TRYING TO EVADE OR NOT COMPLY OR COOPERATE WITH
--

>> WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US DO HERE?

>> I AM GOING TO ASK FOR INDEFINITE SUSPENSION. I THINK THAT IS A
CORRECT DETERMINATION. I THINK SHE CAN BE REHABILITATED, BUT IT
IS A DEATH SENTENCE AS FAR AS THE PRACTICE OF LAW. I BELIEVE SHE IS
SUFFERING SUBSTANTIALLY BY HER IMPRISONMENT, AND I BELIEVE
THAT THINGS WILL COME OUT IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE WHICH WILL
SHOW THAT SOME OF THE THINGS SHE PLED GUILTY TO WITHOUT WHAT I
CONSIDER ANY ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, SHE HAD BEEN APPOINTED
COUNSEL IN THAT CASE, I BELIEVE THOSE THINGS WILL SEND A
DIFFERENT LIGHT ON THINGS. ONE OF THE COUNTS SHE PLED GUILTY TO
HAVE TO DO WITH THE JEWEL COUNTY CASE. AFTER HEARING
EVERYTHING THAT TRANSPIRED HERE, AT THE HEARING PANEL
DISMISSED COUNT 11. THIS IS BASED ON THE SAME FACTS FOR WHICH
TOOL JACKSON PLEDGED FEALTY FOR. HER CRIMINAL CASE WAS A
TRAVESTY AS FAR AS HER HAVING ANY SORT OF REPRESENTATION.

>> THAT IS BIFURCATED. WE'RE NOT TO CONSIDER THAT. WOULD YOU
SUGGEST WE HOLD THIS IN ABEYANCE UNTIL WE DO CONSIDER THAT
CASE?

>> NO, YOUR HONOR, I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT. AND I AM
SUGGESTING THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE BEST POSITION TO
EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE, LOOKED AT THE PEOPLE, ARE THE HEARING
PANEL WHICH RECOMMENDED INDEFINITE SUSPENSION AND I WOULD
CONCUR WITH THAT. THAT IS WHAT I RECOMMENDED GOING IN. THANK
YOU.

Transcripts of oral arguments before the Supreme Court of Ohio are produced by National Captioning
Institute, which has contracted with Ohio Government Telecommunications to provide closed-captioning of
all broadcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments since January 10, 2006. These text files are not official
records of the Supreme Court, and the Court does not vouch for their accuracy. Video of all oral
arguments at the Court since March 2004 is available at the Court’s Web site,
www.supremecourtofohio.gov .
Supreme Court of Ohio
January 19, 2011
Case No. 2010-1693
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF
DISCIPLINARY COUNCIL. I WILL ADDRESS WHAT HAS BEEN STATED
TODAY. FOR STARTERS THIS RESPONDENT WAS FOUND TO VIOLATE 53
PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO RULE OF CONDUCT AND CODE OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. IT DID AND ALL 10 COUNTS, SEVEN
DIFFERENT CLIENTS, AND CRIMINAL DISBARMENT IS THE APPROPRIATE
SANCTION. RESPONDENTS TO THIS CONDUCT INVOLVED NOT ONLY HER
REPRESENTATION OF LEGAL CLIENT, IT INVOLVES HER PRIDE ACTIVITY
OR SEPARATE ACTIVITY AS THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF BUSINESS AND
LEGAL AFFAIRS FOR REAL-ESTATE INVESTMENT FIRM. THE MISCONDUCT
CONTAINED IN THE COMPLAINTS SPANS FOUR SEPARATE YEARS. THE
BOARD DID NOT FIND ANY MITIGATION IN THIS CASE. THEY DID FIND A
LOT OF AGGRAVATION. THEY FOUND THE RESPONDENT HAD A PRIOR
DISCIPLINARY HISTORY. THERE WAS A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.
MULTIPLE OFFENSES. THEY FOUND SHE HAD NOT MADE RESTITUTION. AT
THE HEARING THEY LATER RECOMMENDED A PERMANENT DISBARMENT.
DISBARMENT DID REQUEST AN INDEFINITE SUSPENSION. IN THE BRIEF
THAT WAS FILED, THE DESPONDENT RECOMMENDED THE DISMISSAL. IN
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION VS ACKER THIS COURT HELD THAT DUE
PROCESS AND A DISCIPLINARY CASE IS MET WITH THE RESPONSE THAT
HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES, TAKE DEPOSITIONS,
APPEAR AT A HEARING AND MAKE EXPLANATION FOR THE ALLEGED
MISCONDUCT.
 IN THIS CASE THE RESPOND IT WAS SUPPORTED ALL OF THOSE
OPPORTUNITIES. IN HER BRIEF SHE LED SHE HAS BEEN DENIED DUE
PROCESS AND ALLEGED THAT HAS TAKEN VARIOUS FORM. IT SHOULD BE
NOTED IN THE RECORD OF THIS CASE, NONE OF THOSE WERE BROUGHT
BEFORE THE HEARING PANEL, PUT IN COMPLAINTS OR PUT IN ANSWERS
OR FILED IN MOTIONS. THE RESPONDENTS FIRST ALLEGED THAT SHE WAS
NOT ALLOWED TO APPEAR AT THIS MATTER. THAT IS BECAUSE SHE IS
INCARCERATED. THIS COURT HELD THAT IN A DISCIPLINARY CASE, THE
PRIMARY MEANS OF SECURING THE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS WHO IS A
PRISONER SHOULD BE BY DEPOSITION. IN THE RIGHT COLBERN CASE THE
PERSON WHO WAS IMPRISONED HAPPEN TO BE THE RESPONDENT. IN THIS
MATTER, THE COUNCIL SPENT TWO FULL DAYS AT THE PRISON TAKING
RESPONDENTS DEPOSITION. ON ONE DAY WE WERE EVEN PERMITTED TO
STAY PAST ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING HOURS TO CONTINUE. THAT VIDEO
DEPOSITION WAS PLAYED IN ITS ENTIRETY FOR THE PANEL IN THIS
MATTER. AT THE CONCLUSION OF TESTIMONY, ALL WITNESSES, THE
PANEL IN COUNCIL RETURN TO THE PRESENT TO TAKE AN ADDITIONAL
DAY OF TESTIMONY FROM THE RESPONDENT. WHAT THIS PROVES IS NOT
ONLY WAS SHE AFFORDED BASIC THE PROCESS, BUT THIS PANEL WENT
OUT OF ITS WAY TO MAKE SURE SHE HAD FULL OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT HER SIDE OF THE ALLEGATIONS. RESPONDENT WAS GIVEN THE
Transcripts of oral arguments before the Supreme Court of Ohio are produced by National Captioning
Institute, which has contracted with Ohio Government Telecommunications to provide closed-captioning of
all broadcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments since January 10, 2006. These text files are not official
records of the Supreme Court, and the Court does not vouch for their accuracy. Video of all oral
arguments at the Court since March 2004 is available at the Court’s Web site,
www.supremecourtofohio.gov .
Supreme Court of Ohio
January 19, 2011
Case No. 2010-1693
OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT EXHIBITS AND CALL WITNESSES. YOU WILL
NOTICE FROM THE RECORD THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT CALL
WITNESSES AND SUBMITTED ONE EXHIBIT. THEY ATTENDED ALL DAYS OF
THE HEARING AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES. THE FACT THAT THE
RESPONSE IT DID NOT TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PROVIDE IT TO HER DOES NOT EQUATE TO A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS.
AND FURTHER, THE RESPONSE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE ENTIRE PROCESS
BEFORE THE PANEL WAS FLAWED BECAUSE THE RELATOR DID NOT
SUBMIT AFFIDAVITS ALL OF THE GRIEVANCES. IN HER BRIEF FOR
RESPONDENT, BOTH OF WHICH INVOLVE SOME IT'S FOR THIS CASE. BOTH
OF THOSE CASES INVOLVE DEMOTIONS FOR DEFAULTS, AND THE
EVIDENCE NEEDED TO PROVE ALLEGATIONS IN A COMPLAINT AND
MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT. THE MOTIONS FOR DEFAULTS ARE UNDER A
SEPARATE DIVISION. MOTIONS FOR DEFAULTS ARE UNDER 56 UP. THIS
PROCEEDING WAS NOT HELD UNDER THAT. THIS WAS AN ACTUAL
HEARING WERE THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN ANSWERED IN A PROCEEDING
WAS HELD UNDER RULE 56G.

>> I KNOW YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE AN ORDERLY PRESENTATION, BUT I
THINK THE CHIEF JUSTICE WAS FOCUSED ON THE PUNISHMENT BECAUSE
OF THE STIPULATIONS THAT ARE IN THE CASE. FOLLOWING UP ON THAT,
COULD YOU ADDRESS FOR US IF MR. WALTON'S POSITION IF WE SHOULD
LOOK AT AN INDEFINITE SUSPENSION OR DISBARMENT? COULD YOU
FOCUS ON WHY WE SHOULD LOOK AT ONE OR THE OTHER? A PERMANENT
DISBARMENT IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. THERE IS PERVASIVE
MISCONDUCT ON FREE -- ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT THAT HAS
HARMED MANY PEOPLE. IN JUST SOME OF THESE INSTANCES, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE RESPONDENT BROUGHT UP JACKSON. ONE OF THE COUNT
WAS DISMISSED, ONE SUSTAINED BY THE PANEL. AND THE ONE THAT
SUSTAINED BY THE PANEL AND ALL OF THE RESPONDENT AND ANOTHER
ATTORNEY NAMED CYNTHIA SMITH AND A POST-DIVORCE DECREE
MATTER. THAT INVOLVES PENSION FUNDS, INVESTMENT, THE SALE OF
TWO PROPERTIES. THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT HAVE HIM SIGN A FEE
AGREEMENT. DID NOT TELL HIM HOW MUCH SHE WOULD CHARGE. IN THE
TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING IS THAT NOT ONLY DID WHAT WAS
CHARGED EXCEED $29,000, UP ONE POINT IN TIME THERE WAS A
SETTLEMENT FROM A SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS
WENT TO THE RESPONDENT, APPROXIMATELY $29,000. IN ADDITION TO
THAT, USING HER POSITION AS HER ATTORNEY, THE RESPONDENT HAD
JEWELL JACKSON RESULT -- INVEST IN THE INVESTMENT FIRM THAT THE
ATTORNEY WAS INVOLVED IN. WENT WITH HER TO OUR BANK AND HAVE
HER TAKE OUT $4,800, GAVE HER A RECEIPT, WHICH IS IN THE EXHIBIT,
AND THAT WAS THE ENTIRE CONTRACT FOR THIS INVESTMENT. JEWEL
JACKSON NEVER SAW THAT MONEY AGAIN.
Transcripts of oral arguments before the Supreme Court of Ohio are produced by National Captioning
Institute, which has contracted with Ohio Government Telecommunications to provide closed-captioning of
all broadcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments since January 10, 2006. These text files are not official
records of the Supreme Court, and the Court does not vouch for their accuracy. Video of all oral
arguments at the Court since March 2004 is available at the Court’s Web site,
www.supremecourtofohio.gov .
Supreme Court of Ohio
January 19, 2011
Case No. 2010-1693

>> WE HAVE HAD OTHER LAWYERS THAT HAVE DONE SIMILAR THINGS. I
AM THINKING RECENTLY OF HILDEBRAND CASE WHERE THERE WAS THE
DISBARMENT. IS THIS PARALLEL TO THAT OR ARE THERE OTHER CASES
YOU CAN CITE AS TO THAT MIGHT GIVE US A GUIDE AS TO WHAT WOULD
BE INAPPROPRIATE SANCTION?

>> WE SITE FOR SEPARATE CASES THAT WERE ALL DISBARMENT. THE
FIRST PHASE BEING MARSHALL. ALSO JULIE. THOSE CASES INVOLVED
VARYING DEGREES OF MISCONDUCT, BUT NOTHING AS PERVASIVE AS
WHAT IS IN THIS CASE. IN THE JULIE KAYS THE ATTORNEY WAS
PERMANENTLY DISBARRED FOR NEGLECTING CLIENT MATTERS,
ASSEMBLING A STATE IN A MALPRACTICE MATTER, CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST. DID NOT INVOLVE AS MANY CLIENTS AS THIS PARTICULAR
CASE INVOLVED. THE CASE THAT IS CITED IS A DISBARMENT CASE.

>> IF DO YOU THINK IS COMPARABLE?

>> I THINK IT IS COMPARABLE IN THAT IT INVOLVES ACTIVITIES THAT
INVOLVE THE REPRESENTATION OF CLIENTS. I KNOW WHAT SHE DID WAS
NOT APPROPRIATE, BUT OF ALSO INVOLVED -- IT ALSO INVOLVES
PRIVATE ACTION TO TAKE AND ON HER OWN. THAT IS THE HYBRID WE'RE
DEALING WITH HERE. WE'RE DEALING WITH AN ATTORNEY THAT DEALT
WITH MISCONDUCT.

>> COUNSEL, THAT IS BIFURCATED.

>> IT DEALT WITH HER ACTIVITIES OF VICE PRESIDENT OF BUSINESS FOR
THE COMPANY THAT WERE NOT ALSO BROUGHT UP IN THE CRIMINAL
CASE. THERE WERE SEPARATE ISSUES.

>> OK.

>> IF THE COURT HAS NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, I WOULD REQUEST THAT
PERMIT THE SPERM IS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION IN THIS MATTER.
THANK YOU.

>> MR. WALTON, YOU HAVE ALL OF YOUR TIME. YOU MAY TAKE 30
SECONDS. -- YOU HAVE USED ALL OF YOUR TIME.

>> AS FAR AS THE REAL-ESTATE INVESTMENT FIRM, MY CLIENT WAS AN
INVESTOR, NOT AN OFFICER. IT HAD ARMED JOINT VENTURES WITH
TRIAGE TO BUY AND WE HAVE -- WHICH TRIED TO BUY AND REHAB
HOUSES. THE COUNT AS IT RELATES TO JEWEL JACKSON WAS DISMISSED.
Transcripts of oral arguments before the Supreme Court of Ohio are produced by National Captioning
Institute, which has contracted with Ohio Government Telecommunications to provide closed-captioning of
all broadcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments since January 10, 2006. These text files are not official
records of the Supreme Court, and the Court does not vouch for their accuracy. Video of all oral
arguments at the Court since March 2004 is available at the Court’s Web site,
www.supremecourtofohio.gov .
Supreme Court of Ohio
January 19, 2011
Case No. 2010-1693
AND I WOULD POINT OUT THAT MY CLIENT DID NOT RECEIVE ANYWHERE
NEAR $29,000. THE RACKET WAS -- THE RECORD WAS QUITE CLEAR AS TO
WHAT SHE RECEIVED FOR REPRESENTING JEWEL JACKSON. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.




Transcripts of oral arguments before the Supreme Court of Ohio are produced by National Captioning
Institute, which has contracted with Ohio Government Telecommunications to provide closed-captioning of
all broadcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments since January 10, 2006. These text files are not official
records of the Supreme Court, and the Court does not vouch for their accuracy. Video of all oral
arguments at the Court since March 2004 is available at the Court’s Web site,
www.supremecourtofohio.gov .

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:5/8/2013
language:Unknown
pages:8
yaofenji yaofenji
About