Showing posts with label attorney suspended. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attorney suspended. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 24, 2025

Attorney Suspended for Juggling Funds in Guardianship Accounts


By Dan Trevas

The Supreme Court of Ohio today suspended a Worthington attorney for two years, with 18 months stayed, for transferring money from guardianship accounts without probate court permission, then lying to the court about the amount of money moves he made.

The Supreme Court found Michael Juhola violated several ethics rules when he transferred money from client accounts and then reimbursed the client whose money he used as a “bridge” to benefit his other clients.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court noted that Juhola must recognize that his duties as a court-appointed guardian hold him to a high standard and that client needs and wants must be balanced against hard economic realities and limited resources.

“He cannot allow his empathy for one ward to take precedence over his duty to another,” the Court stated.

In addition to the suspension, the Court ordered Juhola to work with a monitoring attorney for one year following his reinstatement, with the monitor focusing on Juhola’s proper use and distribution of guardianship funds.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the opinion.

Justices R. Patrick DeWine and Joseph T. Deters stated they would impose the sanction recommended by the Board of Professional Conduct, which suggested Juhola be suspended for six months and monitored for one year upon his reinstatement. Justice Jennifer Brunner did not participate in the case. 

Lawyer Shifts Money To Accommodate Client Housing Needs
Juhola operates a solo practice focusing on guardianship, estates, and land-sale auctions. He was serving as the guardian of the estates of Bradford Woelfel and Todd McDaniel in 2023 when he started transferring money between the two accounts.

Juhola was seeking funds to pay McDaniel’s assisted living expenses. At the time McDaniel’s estate was experiencing cash flow problems due to a delay in selling stock McDaniel owned.

In January 2023, Juhola transferred $20,000 from one of Woelfel’s accounts to McDaniel’s account at the same bank. In February 2023, he moved another $5,000 from Woelfel’s account to McDaniel’s. He did not ask the Franklin County Probate Court for permission to do so. Juhola later admitted he did not request permission because he was afraid it would be denied.

“My thought was no harm, no foul; ask for forgiveness instead of permission,” he stated.

Juhola used the $25,000 withdrawn from Woelfel’s account to pay for McDaniel’s assisted living and did not tell McDaniel that he used another client’s money. Weeks later, Juhola completed the stock sale and used the proceeds to reimburse Woelfel’s account. None of the transfers were disclosed in the Woelfel estate accounting reports that Juhola was required to file with the probate court.

Later in 2023, Juhola used money from the Woelfel account again. Juhola served as conservator for Cyle Jarvis for 12 years, but in 2023, the conservatorship was terminated and Juhola became Jarvis’s financial power of attorney. Jarvis had agreed to move from his house to a condominium in an effort to increase his independence and conserve his assets.

Jarvis’s account was short on cash when Juhola and Jarvis found a condominium that suited Jarvis’s needs. Fearing he would not be able to sell Jarvis’ existing home or stocks quickly enough to make a cash offer on the new home and seeking to avoid capital-gains taxes on the sale of stocks, Juhola decided instead to use another client’s money to aid in the purchase.

Juhola transferred $70,000 from the Woelfel estate to Jarvis’s checking account in October 2023, again without seeking probate court approval. He did not tell Woelfel or Jarvis about the transfer. The bank reported the transfer to a supervisor at Franklin County Adult Protective Services. The probate court ordered Juhola to provide bank statements regarding the unauthorized transfer of funds.

Within two weeks, Juhola sold Jarvis’ stock and deposited $70,000, along with $479 in interest, into Woelfel’s account. The probate court later ordered Juhola to reimburse Jarvis for the $479 interest payment and he complied with the court’s order.

Probate Court Questioned Lawyer About Transfers
The probate court conducted a hearing to consider removing Juhola as Woelfel’s guardian. Woelfel’s wife spoke in support of retaining Juhola. The magistrate asked Juhola whether he had ever transferred money from one client’s account to another. Woelfel did not disclose the transfers he made between Woelfel’s and McDaniel’s accounts earlier in 2023.

McDaniel died in January 2024. After reviewing McDaniel’s account, Juhola disclosed to the probate court that he was mistaken when he stated that the transfer between the Woelfel and Jarvis accounts was the only instance. The court ordered Juhola to provide an accounting for 14 other matters. After a four-day hearing on those accounts, the court found no evidence of any additional wrongdoing.

Based on the transfers, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint with the board in November 2024. After conducting a hearing, a three-member board panel found Juhola violated several ethics rules, including rules that prohibit attorneys from knowingly making a false statement to a court and engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law.

The board adopted the panel’s findings and noted that lawyers in positions of public trust, including those appointed as guardians, have a heightened responsibility to abide by the professional conduct rules.

Supreme Court Considered Sanction
The opinion stated that Juhola’s actions constitute the misappropriation of client funds and the presumed sanction for that misconduct is disbarment. However, the sanction “may be tempered with sufficient evidence of mitigating or extenuating circumstances,” the Court noted.

The Court examined sanctions imposed on five other attorneys who either transferred or stole money from client accounts. The opinion noted the sanctions ranged from disbarment to fully stayed suspensions.

Of note in Juhola’s case is that he did not use Woelfel’s money “to pay his own expenses or line his own pocket,” the Court stated. Rather, he used the money as a bridge to secure the purchase of a home Jarvis desired and to pay for McDaniel’s housing costs until he could sell assets from their accounts to pay Woelfel back.

Despite his good intentions, his actions violated his primary duty to manage Woelfel’s estate in his best interests, the Court ruled.

In a required accounting Juhola provided to the probate court, he omitted the two transfers he made from Woelfel’s account to McDaniel’s account. The Court noted the omission is a violation of R.C. 2109.302(A) which required him to provide an itemized statement of all receipts and disbursements for the account. Less than two weeks after making the improper filing, Juhola transferred $70,000 out of Woelfel’s account to help Jarvis.

The Court noted Juhola was fortunate that Woelfel did not financially suffer from his moves. While the board found a six-month suspension was sufficient, the Court determined that a longer suspension with a partial stay “is necessary to impart the seriousness of Juhola’s misconduct and to further discourage him and others from using the assets of one client or ward to make unauthorized loans for the benefit of another.”

In addition to the suspension, Juhola was ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

2025-0789. Disciplinary Counsel v. Juhola, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5663.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online. 

Full Article & Source:
Attorney Suspended for Juggling Funds in Guardianship Accounts 

Tuesday, December 27, 2022

Attorney suspended from practicing after explosive conversation with client


By Sarah Motter

TOPEKA, Kan. (WIBW) - A Missouri attorney has been suspended from practicing law in the State of Kansas following an explosive conversation with his client.

The Kansas Supreme Court says in Case No. 125,417: In the Matter of Troy J. Leavitt, an original proceeding in attorney discipline, that Leavitt - a lawyer out of Blue Springs, Mo., - “stipulated” to violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional conduct.

The Court indicated that Leavitt broke rules in regard to diligence, communication, judicial and legal officials and reporting professional misconduct.

Due to the violations, the Court said it suspended Leavitt’s license to practice in Kansas for one year. His suspension has been ordered to be stayed upon his successful participation and completion of a probation period of one year. 

Court documents indicate that Leavitt’s discipline from the State of Missouri for representation of a client in a paternity matter that involved custody and child support triggered the move. During the case in question, a father searching for an amended parenting agreement failed to attend co-parenting classes required by the Court. The failure to do so led Leavitt to not respond to a motion to dismiss the case and believed it moot as a parenting plan had been filed.

Court documents further indicate that Leavitt did not apprise his client of the judge’s decision to dismiss the case and award the mother more than $4,300 in attorney fees to be paid by the father. Instead, he filed a motion for reconsideration. About a week later, Leavitt claimed he had then remembered to advise his client of the outcome.

Court records indicate that the conversation which resulted from the notification of the case’s outcome had become explosive and ended when Leavitt used profane language and made disrespectful comments to his client and blamed him for the outcome due to his failure to attend counseling.

The Court noted that Leavitt’s probationary period started on Friday, Dec. 9. 

Full Article & Source:
Attorney suspended from practicing after explosive conversation with client

Wednesday, October 26, 2022

Lancaster attorney suspended 1 year for failing to timely report DUI

by DAN NEPHIN


Lancaster lawyer Lon VanDusen Hughes will be suspended from practicing law for a year and a day after failing to timely report a DUI conviction.

In its order Tuesday, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania also acted on findings and recommendations by its disciplinary board that Hughes had subsequent alcohol-related convictions, money problems and “a complete lack of respect for his professional duties.”

Hughes, 51, who has an office at 908 Columbia Ave., did not respond to a phone message Tuesday.

Newberry Township police in York County charged Hughes with DUI after his blood alcohol content was measured at .297% following a November 2018 stop for driving on the wrong side of the road, according to the disciplinary board’s report. The legal limit for intoxication in Pennsylvania is .08%.

Hughes pleaded guilty in April 2019 and was sentenced to two to five years of intermediate punishment — essentially, a period of house arrest and probation — lost his license for 18 months and had to pay fines and costs.

Hughes was required to report his conviction to the state Supreme Court’s disciplinary counsel office within 20 days of the conviction. He reported the conviction May 14.

Hughes also pleaded guilty to three subsequent alcohol-related offenses: public drunkenness in February 2020 in Manheim Township, retail theft from a state liquor store in February 2020 in Manheim Township and public drunkenness in July 2021 in East Hempfield Township.

Hughes also “has a history of fiscal irresponsibility as demonstrated by three matters where he did not timely pay obligations,” the disciplinary board wrote. They include a late payment of $3,148 to York County related to his DUI conviction and a $4,418 judgment in Lancaster County related to credit card debt that’s still unpaid.

The disciplinary board also noted that Hughes was standoffish, rudely interrupted others and called its special counsel a jerk at a January conference related to his discipline. He also failed to appear at his disciplinary hearing.

Hughes, the board wrote, “has made no effort to acknowledge his disciplinarian issues and by his non-appearance, forfeited any meaningful opportunity to accept responsibility and express remorse, show that he is addressing his alcohol related problems, and convey to this board and the court that he values his privilege to practice law. In our view, respondent’s nonappearance at his own disciplinary hearing signifies the ultimate act of this interest in his professional license.”

Hughes’ suspension is effective Nov. 24. He was also ordered to pay all costs incurred by the disciplinary board in the investigation of his case.

Full Article & Source:
Lancaster attorney suspended 1 year for failing to timely report DUI

Saturday, July 23, 2022

Delaware County attorney suspended by Ohio Supreme Court for allegedly bilking clients

by Dean Narciso


The Ohio Supreme Court has suspended indefinitely a Delaware County attorney accused of bilking four of his clients and lying to them.

Robert M. Owens was accused of "deceitful and dishonest conduct, failing to communicate and failing to provide a timely refund to four separate clients." according to the complaint filed last year by the court-appointed Ohio Board of Professional Conduct.

The court issued its ruling Tuesday following several months of investigation, detailing four cases where the board determined that Owens' clients were strung along by false promises, questionable billing and outright theft.

Owens, 48, who could not be reached immediately for comment, is facing criminal investigations in at least two of the cases. Records show that Delaware police are investigating.

Robert M. Owens: What the attorney misconduct complaint says

The most egregious misconduct began in 2018 with a client seeking a divorce, according to the board's complaint.

Owens falsely told the man that he should deposit more than $60,000 in a special account, which would be controlled by the court. Owens told him that he could only gain access to the client funds if Owens proved he had earned it.

Client trust funds are commonly used by attorneys for retainers and other funds, but they are not controlled by the court.

Mismanagement of such trust accounts is "one of the most common ethical violations committed by lawyers," according to Investopedia, an online financial media company.

Owens also advised the man to leave him with additional funds "to shield it from bankruptcy action that (the client) was intending to file," according to the complaint.

The client eventually gave Owens payments totaling more than $150,000, only $46,000 of which Owens had earned by performing services. Much of the client's funds in Owens' account were depleted and shown to be used by Owens for personal expenses.

Three other similar cases involved smaller amounts but included clients who trusted Owens and became angry and desperate as their hearing dates approached and Owens failed to respond to them or return their money.

The suspension order noted that Owens must not provide any type of legal advice, must repay client debts, and must notify all parties that he had contact with that he is not permitted to practice law. He is eligible to petition for reconsideration at a later date if certain conditions are met. If he doesn't, he faces permanent disbarment.

Owens, whose billing rate was $300 per hour, last year closed his practice in downtown Delaware, telling some of his clients that he was dealing with "deep depression" following the death of his father, the complaint states. He began his law practice in 1998.

Owens faced a similar one-year suspension in 2018 for the same type of misconduct.

Full Article & Source:

Monday, June 27, 2022

Clifton Park attorney suspended for alleged theft from escrow account

by Robert Gavin

ALBANY – A Clifton Park attorney has been indefinitely suspended from practicing law as she faces allegations she stole money from an escrow account in a real estate transaction.

Kimberly Anne Harp, who became a lawyer in 2000, also sent allegedly altered bank statements to an attorney watchdog committee investigating her actions, according to the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court’s Third Department, which imposed Harp’s suspension Thursday.

Harp is the second local lawyer to be suspended this month. Robert Morris Cohen, an attorney since 1972, was suspended last week  after failing to respond to allegations that he failed to refund a client’s retainer fee.

The Third Department’s Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) began investigating Harp in June 2020 after learning that a check drawn on Harp’s business account was dishonored, the decision said.

An audit of the escrow account and business accounts, her subpoenaed bank records and Harp’s sworn testimony led the committee to request that Harp be suspended. 

Harp, 48, an Albany Law School graduate, did not respond to the the committee’s motion after being given two adjournment dates, leading the justices to impose the suspension, the decision said.

The ruling said evidence, including Harp’s testimony, showed she “misappropriated, for her own use, monies deposited in her attorney escrow account which were to be held in trust for the sellers in a real estate transaction.”

The decision said Harp commingled personal funds with money held in trust “in an attempt to make the sellers whole,” the decision said. “While these facts have been established, in part, by (Harp’s) own testimony, we also note that (Harp) concomitantly took measures to conceal her own misconduct by providing AGC with altered bank statements.”

Harp could not be immediately reached for comment.

Presiding Justice Elizabeth Garry and Justices John Egan, Michael Lynch, Sharon Aarons and Molly Reynolds Fitzgerald imposed the suspension.

Full Article & Source:

Saturday, June 4, 2022

Crown Point attorney suspended after cases delegated to son were neglected

Steven A. Johnson, a Crown Point mediation and labor attorney, has been suspended from the practice of law in Indiana after two cases he handed off to his son resulted in two five-figure sanctions and a default judgment of $1.8 million against his client due to negligence.

Discipline was ordered in In the Matter of: Steven A. Johnson, 21S-DI-211, after Johnson was found to have violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.3: Failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; 1.4(a)(3): Failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter; 1.4(a)(4): Failing to comply promptly with a client’s reasonable requests for information; and 1.4(b): Failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions.

According to Thursday’s order, Steven Johnson and his son, Arthur C. Johnson, were partners at the time and represented a transportation company in two separate matters — a breach of contract action and a labor dispute.

Arthur Johnson is a former Merrillville attorney who resigned from the Indiana bar in 2021 after facing a disciplinary action for allegedly engaging in a scheme to falsify a notice that the court’s electronic filing system had malfunctioned to cover up his failure to timely submit a filing. He was alleged to have violated seven rules of professional conduct, and had previously faced $33,252.36 in sanctions from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in July 2019.

In the May 5 order, it states the transportation company client’s CEO, Danette Garza, was the sole point of contact with the law firm. The order says Steven Johnson led Garza to believe that he would have primary responsibility for the two matters and that Arthur Johnson would assist him in those cases.

However, after some initial activity in the breach of contract action, Steven Johnson delegated all internal responsibility to his son and stepped away from the matter entirely.

The recent order says that Arthur Johnson wholly neglected the breach of contract matter, which resulted in a series of adverse rulings. Specifically, Arthur was largely nonresponsive to Garza’s inquiries and, when he did respond, misrepresented the status of the case.

Steven Johnson was also nonresponsive to Garza’s inquiries.

Due to their neglect, the breach of contract action resulted in two five-figure sanction awards and a $1.8 million default judgment against the client. According to the high court’s order, the client only first learned about the judgment when its bank account was seized during garnishment proceedings.

Successor counsel later appeared for the client and moved to set aside the default judgment based on the Johnsons’ neglect.

Meanwhile, a similar sequence of events unfolded in the clients’ labor dispute. Steven Johnson, again, internally delegated the matter to his son without informing Garza. Arthur proceeded to wholly neglect the matter and both he and his father remained largely nonresponsive to Garza’s inquiries.

“Respondent knew of Arthur’s failure to timely file an answer, noncompliance with discovery, and a resulting order to show cause; yet Respondent did not increase his attention to the case or take any remedial steps,” Chief Justice Loretta Rush wrote in the order. “Successor counsel appeared for Client at the show cause hearing and thereafter worked to comply with the pending discovery orders, and Respondent subsequently withdrew his appearance.”

The Indiana Supreme Court agreed to suspend Steven Johnson for 30 days beginning on June 20. He is prohibited from taking on any new legal matters between the service of the May 5 order and the effective date of his suspension and shall also fulfill all the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26).

Once the suspension period is up, provided there are no other suspensions in effect, Steven Johnson shall be automatically reinstated to the practice of law, subject to the conditions of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18)(a). The costs of the proceedings are assessed against him.

Steven Johnson, who was admitted to the bar in 1975, has previously faced a “private reprimand” in a 1995 attorney discipline action, according to court records.

Full Article & Source:

Saturday, March 26, 2022

Quincy attorney suspended for one year


By Jim Roberts

QUINCY (WGEM) - Quincy attorney Roni VanAusdall has been suspended for one year by the Illinois Supreme Court, according to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

The ARDC reported that during a divorce case, VanAusdall came to an agreement with opposing counsel concerning parenting time. The ARDC report said VanAusdall prepared a proposed order memorializing the agreement and obtained opposing counsel’s permission to submit the order to the trial judge.

The ARDC said VanAusdall then created a second proposed order that included provisions that had not been agreed upon and falsely assured the trial judge that opposing counsel had agreed to the order she was presenting.

The ARDC also reported VanAusdall was charged with attempted forgery. According to our news-gathering partners at The Herald-Whig, VanAusdall entered an Alford plea to a misdemeanor charge of attempted forgery in January 2021. By entering the Alford plea, VanAusdall maintained her innocence but agreed the state had enough evidence to prove her guilt.

Court records show she was sentenced to 18 months supervision and 100 hours of community service.

The Herald-Whig reported that if she successfully completes supervision, the charges will be dismissed.

The ARDC reported the suspension is effective April 15, 2022.

Full Article & Source:
Quincy attorney suspended for one year

Saturday, March 5, 2022

Immigration attorney suspended again for unauthorized practice of law

An Indianapolis attorney already on probation following a suspension will have to serve the remaining balance of her suspended time after she was found to have practiced law while under a reciprocal suspension order.

Patricia Rios was disciplined in April 2021 for representing clients in an immigration matter after being fired for noncommunication. The Indiana Supreme Court suspended her for 90 days, with 30 days served and the remainder stayed subject to completion of a probation period of at least 545 days.

In January, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a motion to revoke Rios’ probation, asserting she had committed the unauthorized practice of law, in violation of Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 5.5(a), by filing four appearances with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency. At the time, she was under an order of reciprocal suspension imposed by the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals.

Rios filed a verified supplemental response maintaining she signed three of the appearances before she became aware of the reciprocal suspension order. But she admitted she signed the fourth appearance and had all four appearances mailed after she learned of the order.

The Supreme Court issued an order Feb. 24 granting the commission’s motion in In the Matter of: Patricia L. Rios, 20S-DI-312.

Beginning April 7, Rios will be suspended from practicing law for 60 days without automatic reinstatement. Also, she is barred from undertaking any new legal matters from now until the time her suspension begins, and she is required to fulfill all the duties of a suspended attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26).

At the end of the 60-day period, Rios may petition for reinstatement if she has paid the costs of the proceeding, fulfilled the duties of a suspended attorney and satisfied the requirements for reinstatement of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18).

All justices concurred.

Full Article & Source:

Friday, March 4, 2022

Attorney Suspended for Damaging Reputation of Opposing Lawyer, Legal Community


By Dan Trevas

The Supreme Court of Ohio today suspended a Cuyahoga County lawyer for asking a judge to refer an opposing attorney for mental health screening to pressure that attorney into dismissing a contentious case.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court suspended Douglas Whipple of University Heights for one year, with six months stayed. The Court found Whipple violated ethical rules by making threats of filing criminal charges or professional misconduct charges for the sole purpose of gaining an advantage in a civil matter.

In 2019, Whipple filed a motion requesting that the trial judge refer attorney Roger Synenberg to the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (OLAP). Whipple stated in court that he would drop the request if Synenberg and the other opposing attorneys agreed to dismiss a prolonged estate-planning case.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court stated that Whipple damaged not only Synenberg’s reputation with the allegations of mental health issues, but also the reputation of the legal profession by “reinforcing one of the worst stereotypes of attorneys – that they will abuse the legal process to gain an unfair advantage for their clients.”

Estate Dispute Leads to Prolonged Court Case
Glenn Seeley was a retired attorney and friend of Whipple’s. In 2010, Seeley granted his wife, Kristina, power of attorney to manage his finances and health care. He also designated his wife as a co-trustee of a trust in his name. By early 2015, Glenn was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and moved into a facility for those suffering from dementia.

In February 2016, Glenn signed a second durable power of attorney, giving his son, Gregory, and his grandson, Matthew, (both attorneys), power to manage his finances. Whipple also alleged that Glenn amended his trust to make Gregory the co-trustee of his trust, replacing Kristina.

In November 2016, Kristina, who is Gregory’s stepmother, hired Whipple to challenge the validity of the documents signed early in the year. In January 2017, Whipple filed a lawsuit on behalf of Glenn and Kristina Seeley against Gregory and another attorney. Synenberg and two other attorneys were hired to represent Gregory and the other lawyer.

After nearly two years of contentious litigation, the parties agreed to a settlement in December 2018. The next month, the trial court determined the settlement was reasonable and directed the parties to complete their remaining obligations, including submitting a filing to the court to formally dismiss the case.

Settlement Dispute Prompts Controversial Request from Judge
About two months after agreeing to the settlement, Synenberg questioned whether Kristina was mentally competent to sign the settlement agreement. Whipple asserted she was. The trial court attempted to have the parties confirm the settlement and set a hearing for a Monday morning in June 2019.

Late on the Friday before the hearing, Whipple filed a motion requesting that the judge refer Synenberg to OLAP. In this motion, Whipple alleged Synenberg’s “performance as a lawyer was impaired by a mental or emotional condition or some other condition.” He maintained Synenberg was making unfounded attacks on Kristina’s mental capacity and needlessly delaying the case’s dismissal.

In his motion, Whipple referred to an unrelated high-profile case involving Synenberg. Based on media reports of the unrelated case, Whipple accused Synenberg of retaliating against a witness who testified against one of Synenberg’s clients. Retaliating against a witness is a third-degree felony. Whipple also made other claims against Synenberg, including that he made misrepresentations to the court and defamed Whipple’s paralegal, who is also Whipple’s wife.

At the Monday hearing, Synenberg and his colleagues objected to the motion, claiming it was frivolous. Whipple told the trial judge that he expected Synenberg and the other attorneys to sign the agreement to dismiss the case. If not, he wanted to proceed with the motion to have Synenberg referred to OLAP.

The trial judge did not act on the motion, and later raised the issue of whether Whipple’s request violated the professional conduct rule that prohibits threatening to charge an opposing attorney with a crime or professional misconduct solely to gain an advantage in a civil matter.

The Seeley case was dismissed, but based on the motion, the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association filed a complaint against Whipple with the Board of Professional Conduct.

Board Found Rule Violations
The trial judge in the Seeley matter testified at Whipple’s disciplinary hearing. The judge told a three-member panel that Whipple was expressing his anger with the court for the delays and his frustration with Synenberg. The judge indicated the motion, which is a public record, was intended to pressure Synenberg and the other attorneys to end the questioning of Kristina’s competency and settle the case.

Whipple maintained he did not commit any ethical violations and was expressing a true concern for Synenberg’s mental health. The board disagreed and recommended the Supreme Court suspend Whipple for one year, with six months stayed.

Whipple objected to the board recommendation, suggesting his conduct at most warranted a public reprimand. The objection triggered oral arguments before the Court.

Supreme Court Examined Allegations
The opinion stated the Court’s independent review of the record provides overwhelming evidence that the sole purpose of Whipple’s motion was to force Synenberg to stop questioning Kristina’s capacity and agree to dismiss the case. The Court noted Whipple’s own actions at the hearing refute his claims that he had sincere concern for the opposing attorney. Whipple only agreed to withdraw the motion if Synenberg agreed to settle.

The Court noted that by implying Synenberg was committing the crime of witness retaliation, Whipple was also alleging that Synenberg engaged in professional misconduct. The claims violate the rule of alleging a crime or professional misconduct to gain a legal advantage, the Court concluded.

Whipple also said that his comments did not harm Synenberg’s reputation, and that Synenberg had downplayed the significance of Whipple’s accusations. The opinion stated an attorney’s “most valuable asset is his or her professional reputation for competence, honesty, and integrity.”

The Court stated that Whipple went far beyond citing the publicized unrelated case regarding potential witness retaliation by claiming Synenberg’s actions “were adversely affected by some unidentified condition.” Those allegations in a public filing caused some harm to Synenberg’s reputation, the opinion stated.

“In addition to the harm Whipple’s allegations inflected on Synenberg’s reputation, his conduct also caused immeasurable harm to the public perception of the legal profession. On these facts, Whipple’s conduct warrants a sanction greater than the public reprimand that he seeks,” the Court concluded.

The six-month stay of Whipple’s one-year suspension is conditioned on not committing further misconduct. He was also ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

2021-0229. Cleveland Metro Bar Assn. v. Whipple, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-510.

Video camera icon View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

Full Article & Source:

Tuesday, February 22, 2022

Attorney Suspended for Threat to Expose Intimate Photos in Court

by David McAfee


A lawyer in Indiana was suspended for 90 days by the state’s high court for allegedly using a deposition to threaten to make public the intimate photos of a woman who was seeking a protective order against his client.

Allen R. Stout was accused of behaving inappropriately in a deposition and hearing towards the wife of a man he represented in a marital dissolution case. He was separately accused of using a deposition to threaten to expose intimate photos of a woman who was seeking a protective order to prevent alleged harassment by another of Stout’s clients.

As to Stout’s behavior toward the husband of the woman he represented, a hearing officer found that the conduct was unprofessional but didn’t violate any rules.

But related to the photos, the hearing officer concluded Stout violated Indiana Professional Conduct rules by knowingly making a false statement of material fact in the the course of representing a client, engaging in dishonest conduct, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed those findings on Thursday, saying it found “sufficient support” for the hearing officer’s conclusions. The court also accepted the hearing officer’s recommendation for a 90-day suspension.

Court documents don’t list counsel for Stout. Representatives for Stout’s law firm didn’t immediately return Bloomberg Law’s request for comments on Friday.

The case is In re Stout, Ind., No. 20S-DI-719, 2/3/22.

Full Article & Source:

Monday, February 21, 2022

Local attorney suspended after several run-ins with the law

by: Jennifer Rodriguez

MAHONING COUNTY, Ohio (WKBN) – A Mahoning County attorney has been suspended and is in jail after allegations of misconduct.

The Mahoning County Bar Association filed a motion with the Ohio Supreme Court for an interim remedial suspension of Ohio attorney Krishna James. On February 14, the Ohio Supreme Court granted the suspension with conditions for his return.

This was done after James had several run-ins with law enforcement and was eventually arrested in New Castle with serious charges, according to court documents.

James was arrested on January 1 and is currently in the Lawrence County Jail.

A motion filed with the Ohio Supreme Court alleges that James possesses “a substantial threat of serious harm to the public.” Some of it has been attributed to an “altered mental state” at the time of the incidents.

According to a memorandum, A New Castle Police report states that on January 1, James entered the New Castle main fire station at around 7 a.m. He walked around the station picking up different tools and damaged an already damaged door with a hammer and an ax and severed the cable that raises and lowers the door.

The report says he woke up firefighters who were sleeping in the station’s living quarters and
told them he was ready for the “coming siege.” When a firefighter asked him why he had a screwdriver, he showed a pistol and said, “So I don’t have to use this.”

Firefighters were able to escort him out, but James left before police arrived. Shortly after, New Castle police were called to the Lawrence County Community Action Partnership building for an alarm call. When officers got there, they found an open door, two spent shell casings, and two bullet holes in the ceiling near a siren speaker, reports said.

A video showed two flashes which appeared to be James firing two shots at the alarm system. Not long after, the 911 call center received a call about a suspect, later determined to be James, attempting to get into the McGonagle Ambulance Station on the corner of Jefferson and Falls Street.

New Castle police put out a countywide alert for James’ vehicle and later found him in the vehicle at another location. The report states when police confronted him he got out of his car, refused to comply and identified himself as an Ohio attorney.

James was shot twice with “less-lethal sponge rounds” and taken into custody, according to the report. He was treated at UPMC Jamison Medical Center for minor injuries from the sponge bullets. Officers recovered a loaded 9mm handgun from his vehicle, the memorandum says.

He was taken to the Lawrence County Jail and given a $100,000.00 bond.

During his arrest, officers found he also had two felony charges pending in Ohio, both for separate incidents in 2021 for possession of drugs.

Both incidents happened in Trumbull County on July 27, 2021, when the Girard City police department responded to a call of a male suspect in the woods behind a cemetery. When police arrived, they found James near a vehicle that appeared to be stuck on a log. James was seen “bending small trees into the ground and interlocking them,” according to the report.

James was arrested for criminal trespassing and police say they found two small bags of suspected methamphetamine in his vehicle, as well as a buprenorphine/naloxone strip. According to the report, he failed to appear for arraignment on the charge, and a bench warrant was issued.

The second incident happened on September 4, 2021, in Liberty Township. Police responded to a Dollar General for a suspect, later identified as James, who was in an altered mental state.

When they got there, police discovered the active bench warrant and took James in custody. That’s when they found two clear plastic baggies containing a white powdery substance, cut plastic straws with white residue, and two rolls of burnt tinfoil with burnt residue in James’ car, according to the report.

A felony possession charge, and a misdemeanor paraphernalia charge, were filed in Girard Municipal Court on January 11, 2022, and another bench warrant was issued.

The memorandum states over the past six months, police have been called various times to find James trespassing in an altered mental state. It also states it’s unknown whether this altered mental state is a result of a mental disorder, a substance-abuse disorder, some other disorder or a combination of all.

A competency evaluation is pending in the Pennsylvania case. The Lawrence County case is on hold awaiting completion of the pending competency evaluation, and the two Ohio cases are on hold until the Pennsylvania case is completed.

If you or anyone you know is struggling with mental health issues, or drug addiction there are resources that can help. You can reach the Ohio Mental Health and Addiction Services 24/7 care line at 1-800-720-9616 or the Pennsylvania Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services here.

Monday, November 29, 2021

Attorney Suspended for Disparaging Justices and Judges


By Dan Trevas

The Ohio Supreme Court today suspended a Richmond Heights attorney for one year with six months stayed for accusing Ohio judges and Supreme Court justices of basing property tax valuation decisions on “politics, not law,” and for speculating about political motivations behind their decisions.

In a per curiam opinion, a divided Supreme Court found John Morton violated the professional conduct rules by voicing undignified and discourteous statements about the judicial officers and recklessly making false statements about their integrity.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Michael P. Donnelly, and Jennifer Brunner joined the opinion.

Justices Sharon L. Kennedy and R. Patrick DeWine dissented with separate opinions, each noting that Morton’s statements, originally made in a memorandum seeking the Court’s acceptance of an appeal he filed, were free speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Chief Justice O’Connor also wrote a concurring opinion to respond to what she views as the dissenting opinions’ attempts to distract from the focus of the disciplinary action against Morton with “First Amendment arguments” and to paint members of the Court as “fragile and vindictive.” Justices Fischer, Donnelly, and Brunner also joined the concurring opinion.

Justice Melody J. Stewart joined the chief justice’s opinion, except that she supported the Board of Professional Conduct’s recommendation that Morton’s suspension be fully stayed.

Judicial Behavior Questioned in Filing
Morton represented a Cuyahoga County landowner in a tax valuation matter. In an appeal of a county valuation, Morton argued that after his client presented a value based on a land sale, the burden shifted to the county board of revision to present evidence in support of the county’s higher valuation. In rejecting Morton’s argument, the Eighth District Court of Appeals cited the Ohio Supreme Court’s 2017 Moskowitz v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision decision.

Morton sought the Supreme Court’s review of the Eighth District’s decision upholding the board of revision’s valuation. In his January 2019 memo advocating that the Court accept the case, he argued that Moskowitz was wrongly decided. He also criticized the Eighth District panel and opined, “Only politicians committed to maximizing the revenue of their political cronies could reach such a conclusion ….”

He went on to criticize the Supreme Court’s handling of the Moskowitz case. He wrote the “political goal of the Moskowitz Court was to maximize government revenue, at the expense of the taxpayer and his or her Constitutional right to limited taxation.”

He accused specific justices of showing a willingness to favor the government by accepting valuations “no matter how unreasonable the government’s view” of a property’s value. He stated the “most obvious evidence of the political nature of the Moskowitz decision” was delaying the decision until after two former members of the Court retired and were replaced by Justices Fischer and DeWine. He assigned the responsibility for that delay to Chief Justice O’Connor.

The Court declined to accept the case.

Lawyer Challenged Misconduct Claims
In April 2020, the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association filed a complaint against Morton with the professional conduct board. Morton sought to dismiss the matter, but the board rejected his request. A three-member board panel conducted a hearing, which found that Morton had no reasonable factual basis for making the allegations about the judges and justices.

The board found he violated three ethical rules, including one that prohibits a lawyer from engaging in undignified and discourteous conduct that is degrading to a court. The board recommended that Morton be suspended for one year, fully stayed, on the condition that he does not commit any further misconduct. The bar association objected to the recommendation and urged the Court to suspend Morton for six months with no stay.

Morton asked the Court to dismiss the charges, in part by challenging the board’s reliance on the Court’s 2003 Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner decision. He maintained Gardner allows for punishment of speech by attorneys that is protected by the First Amendment.

Supreme Court Rejects Attorney’s Objections
The Court majority noted that Morton argued his First Amendment rights are supported by U.S. Supreme Court rulings that allow individuals to make comments about public officials unless the statements are knowingly false or made with a reckless disregard for the truth. He maintained that under Gardner, the Ohio Supreme Court uses a lower standard that allows an attorney to be sanctioned for making accusations of judicial impropriety that a reasonable attorney would believe are false.

The opinion noted that Morton cited cases that would prevent him from being found guilty of defaming a public official. However, the opinion stated, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that attorneys may be subject to ethical restrictions on speech that could not be applied to an ordinary citizen.

The opinion stated that contrary to Morton’s arguments, “it was not only possible—but true—that our decision in Moskowitz was based on well-settled law.” The opinion noted there was a record number of tax appeals filed with the Court in 2014 and 2015, and Morton ignored the possibility that the delay in decisions could be attributed to the high number of cases submitted.

“He admitted he made no investigation and relied solely upon his own interpretation of the facts in making his statements,” the opinion stated.

The Court modified the board’s recommendation and stayed six months of Morton’s one-year suspension with the condition that he does not commit further misconduct. Morton must also pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

Dissent Challenged Court Standard
In her dissent, Justice Kennedy stated that the Court’s reliance on Gardner’s reasonable-attorney standardwas contrary to the free speech rights of attorneys guaranteed by the First Amendment and the plain language of the current Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the Court. She noted that the Gardner decision was delivered at a time when attorneys followed the Code of Professional Responsibility, which has been replaced.

She wrote that the new professional conduct rules adopted the actual-malice standard to determine whether an attorney’s statements made about a judge were subject to discipline. She advocated that the language of the rule “requires the court to consider the attorney’s state of mind at the time of making the statement and is inconsistent with a reasonable-attorney standard.”  She maintained that Gardner should be overruled and the Court subject attorneys to discipline only for a statement that disparages the judiciary when it is “(1) proven to be a false statement of fact, and (2) the statement was made with actual malice—with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for its truth.”

Justice Kennedy also challenged Gardener’s justification that a negligence standard was necessary to preserve public confident in the judiciary. Noting recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, she wrote that “the need to protect the appearance of judicial integrity may not be a compelling interest sufficient to abridge an attorney’s right to criticize a judicial officer.”

She further reasoned that if the Court permitted discipline under the negligence standard, its constitutionality cannot withstand strict scrutiny analysis. The rule is “overinclusive in that it prohibits true statements that attorneys should think are false, and it is underinclusive in that it does not prohibit statements that are false but that a reasonable attorney would assume to be true,” she wrote.

Because the bar association did not prove that Morton’s statements were false, she would dismiss the charges.

Lawyer Expressed Opinion, Dissent Maintained
Justice DeWine wrote that the Court suspended Morton for “saying some not-so-nice things” in a document he filed and nothing Morton said has been shown to be untrue.

“My skin is not so thin as to think that such punishment is warranted,” he wrote.

Justice DeWine noted that Morton correctly pointed out that the Moskowitz decision took the Court an extraordinarily long time to decide, and he analyzed the prior decision of the justices he criticized to support his contention that they favored the government at the expense of the taxpayer.
He wrote that while much of what Morton said was not very respectful, Morton “laid out the facts supporting his premises for all to see.”   Morton’s assertions are best understood as “statements of opinion based on fully disclosed facts,” a category of speech that is protected by the First Amendment, the dissent stated. Justice DeWine added that the majority opinion will only serve to chill attorney criticism of the judiciary.

“By placing concerns for its own reputation ahead of the constitutional principles we have sworn to uphold, the majority damages this institution in ways far more profound than any harm done by Morton,” Justice DeWine concluded.

Chief Justice Rejects Dissent Arguments
Chief Justice O’Connor concurred with the per curiam opinion, stating Morton blatantly breached his professional duties, including preserving the integrity of the judiciary, that he had agreed to abide by so that he could practice as an attorney in Ohio. She emphasized that Morton cannot seek refuge in the First Amendment when he chose to disregard these accepted duties.

The opinion noted Ohio attorneys take an oath when entering the practice and, by this oath, accept the duty to conduct themselves with “dignity and civility” and the duty to comply with ethical rules. Attorneys accepting these duties also accept “that there are professional consequences for failing to fulfill these duties.”

By agreeing to abide by the rules, Morton agreed to the rule that an attorney must have a reasonable factual basis before making a statement about a judicial officer. This rule seeks to preserve the public’s confidence in the justice system’s fairness and impartiality. The disciplinary case against Morton was not brought “because our skin is too ‘thin’,” the chief justice wrote, and has “nothing to do with this court or any of its justices.” “Rather it is about preserving the integrity of the court — i.e., the judicial system as a whole — by maintaining public confidence in the court’s impartiality and the rule of law,” Chief Justice O’Connor wrote.

The concurrence noted the dissenting opinions’ First Amendment arguments are “a red herring” and emphasized “the constitutional concerns designed to further robust public discussion in the press are not implicated” in this case.

2020-1520. Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Morton, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4095.

Video camera icon View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

Full Article & Source:

Saturday, November 6, 2021

Lewiston attorney suspended six months for lying and misconduct

Attorney Stephen Link was found to have been intentionally dishonest with one client and to have failed to follow through on representing another. 

 
By Matt Byrne

A Lewiston-based attorney has been suspended from practice for six months after being found to have lied to one client about filing a case on her behalf and failed to file a case for another client despite collecting a $1,500 fee.

Stephen J. Link was suspended Oct. 31 after the two clients filed complaints with the state Board of Overseers of the Bar, the professional licensing agency for attorneys in Maine.

Attorneys who are admitted to the bar agree to follow strict rules of professional conduct or risk losing their right to practice. Complaints against attorneys are investigated by the overseers. If a complaint is found to have merit, a recommendation for sanctions is often presented to a single justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, who decides what penalties are appropriate.

Link was admitted to the Maine bar in 2015. A listed phone number for his Lewiston office is disconnected, and he could not be reached for an interview Thursday. His corporation, Stephen J. Link, Attorney at Law, LLC, was dissolved in 2020 after he failed to file an annual report with the Maine Secretary of State’s Office as required by law.

Link filed an initial response to the bar complaints, but failed to participate in further proceedings and the findings of misconduct were entered as a default judgment, meaning the case presented by the bar board was heard unopposed.

In her Oct. 29 decision against him, District Court Judge E. Mary Kelly, who was designated to write the opinion, found that Link has no disciplinary history, was relatively new in practice and that some of his errors could have been unintentional. But she said that his failure to engage in the disciplinary process meant he was unable to discharge his duties as an attorney, and she highlighted his deception of one of the clients who complained.

“The Court cannot determine whether Attorney Link’s failure to participate in this process is the product of disdain or disability, but finds that in either event before Attorney Link returns to practice he must demonstrate his fitness to do so,” Kelly wrote.

The first case that resulted in a complaint began in late 2018, when Pamela Stowe hired Link to represent her in a probate matter, a contested will, and paid Link a $1,500 advance fee.

Two months later, Stowe instructed Link to file a lawsuit on her behalf, but Link never filed it. From January 2019 into that summer, Stowe attempted to contact Link but could not reach him.

He replied to her in August 2019, apologized and offered to refund the $1,500. By January 2020, Stowe still had not received repayment.

Link’s failure to file the lawsuit at the proper time means Stowe is now barred under law from pursuing the matter because of rules setting time limits on when certain claims must be made.

The second case began in 2019, when a woman engaged Link to represent her in another probate matter in which she sought to be named personal representative of a dead man’s estate, according to Kelly’s decision. Such filings are a routine aspect of settling a deceased person’s affairs.

The client, Jennifer Cutting, asked Link via email in late February 2019 to provide a progress report on the probate case. Link told her his pleadings were not accepted by the court because he needed the addresses of the heirs listed in the deceased man’s will, and Cutting provided the addresses the same day, Kelly’s decision said.

About a week later, Cutting again asked for a status report, and Link told her he expected to hear back from the court in about a week.

Cutting contacted him again more than a week later. When he did not reply, she called the court and learned that the matters Link had promised to pursue had not been filed, according to the decision. Thirteen days later, Link responded, telling Cutting that the probate matter was proceeding – but in reality, he waited another month to file it.

By early May, Cutting still had not received the paperwork she expected, and attempted to contact Link again. Another week passed before Link told her on May 20 that there had been a mix-up with the death certificate but that it had been addressed.

In fact, Link did not file the death certificate until the next day, May 21. Finally, in June, Cutting directed Link to withdraw from the case, but he failed to file that paperwork, as well.

Full Article & Source:

Friday, September 3, 2021

Former Bradford DA officially disbarred; local attorney's license temporarily suspended: Dept. of Justice

by Carrie Pauling


Harrisburg, Pa. – The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued two orders on August 17, announcing the disbarrment of one prominent area attorney and the suspension of another.

Bradford County attorney Chad Michael Salsman (#87547) has been disbarred on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth, retroactive to March 25, 2021.

After an extensive investigation by the Attorney General's office, Chad Salsman, former Bradford County District Attorney, pled guilty to one felony count of promoting prostitution and two misdemeanor charges of obstruction and intimidation of a witness the morning of May 7, 2021. Salsman resigned his post as District Attorney the same day.

On July 9, Judge Joseph Augello handed down an 18 month to five-year sentence in State Prison for felony charges of promoting prostitution, obstruction of justice, and witness intimidation.

Lycoming County attorney Matthew J. Zeigler (#83367) has been placed on temporary suspension from the Bar of this Commonwealth until further action by the Court, effective September 16, 2021.

Matthew Zeigler, 48, and his wife Christine, 50, of Williamsport, were taken into custody the morning of December 4, 2020 at the conclusion of a 7-month investigation by the Office of Attorney General.

The investigation into the allegations of abuse began after Matthew Zeigler was arrested for firing a gun twice out the window of their home during an argument with his wife. Five of their children were home at the time, including his 18-year-old daughter who was outside at the time of the gun shots. After Zeigler’s arrest, his children were interviewed, and disclosed emotional and physical abuse by both parents.

Zeigler has been in and out of court related to charges of abuse, conspiracy, reckless endangerment, and driving under the influence. He is currently in Lycoming County prison.

Full Article & Source:

Monday, June 14, 2021

Minnesota Supreme Court suspends Minneapolis attorney convicted of tax evasion indefinitely

Convicted of tax evasion, he has long been on the radar of the state and federal judiciary and the lawyers board.

 
By Randy Furst

William Bernard Butler
The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the indefinite suspension of a Minneapolis attorney who was convicted in 2019 of tax evasion.

The high court said that besides failing to pay his income taxes, William Butler continued to list himself as an attorney on his website after he was suspended, misused his attorney trust account and failed to cooperate with an investigation conducted by the director of the state's Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board.

Butler had challenged the findings of a referee, but the Supreme Court said she had not abused her discretion. The court said "the appropriate discipline for Butler's misconduct is an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for four years."

Butler has been in the cross hairs of the Minnesota's state and federal judiciary for the past decade.

He has been sanctioned and held in contempt for filing frivolous lawsuits over housing foreclosures and failing to pay the fees and fines when he was sanctioned. When judges tossed out his cases, he was accused of filing the same cases a second time. He was suspended in 2015 by the lawyers board.

Despite earning hundreds of thousands of dollars when he still had a law license, he failed to pay his income taxes beginning in 2010, according to the Minnesota Department of Revenue, and was charged in 2018 for failure to pay income taxes in 2013 and 2014. 

why he didn't have to pay taxes. He has also written articles characterizing the government's taxing authority as "coercive power." After he was convicted, the District Court stayed imposition of the sentence and placed Butler on probation for three years.

The high court said that he complied with conditions of probation by filing tax returns from 2012 through 2019.

But in other respects, Butler continued to find himself at odds with the lawyers board.

Disciplined by the high court in 2015 and again in 2017 and forbidden from practicing law, the lawyers board sent Butler a letter in 2019 saying that his website stated he was a Minnesota attorney.

Butler responded that his website was "currently down" but if it went back up he would change it to state that he "is a nonpracticing Minnesota attorney" and include a link to his prior discipline.

The lawyers board bars attorneys from using their attorney trust account for personal or business expenses. But the high court said that Butler used his trust account to make monthly car lease payments and to pay car insurance. He also used the account to deposit personal funds, including a $10,000 personal check, and disbursed payments to himself. There were never any third-party funds in the account during the disputed period or any commingling of funds. Butler explained that he used the trust account for personal purposes because his criminal convictions prevented him from opening a new bank account.

The high court said that "while we often suspend an attorney for between one to three years for a conviction such as willful tax evasion, the aggravating factors including Butler's prior similar misconduct and lack of remorse — warrant more severe discipline."

Full Article & Source: