The Ohio Supreme Court today suspended two Ohio lawyers.

• Robert J. Leon of Westerville was suspended for one year with six months stayed, with conditions, for mishandling a case and having sex with his client.
• Thomas D. Pigott of Toledo was suspended for six months for failing to pay clients money they were due.

The following month, the wife inquired about the status of the matter, and Leon responded that it was taking longer than expected. When she inquired again in October, Leon told her he filed the case with the court, when he had not. In the absence of the filing, creditors were able to take collection actions against them, including foreclosing on their home and repossessing one of their cars.

In early 2016, Leon and the wife began sending text messages of a sexual nature to each other, and later engaged in consensual sexual intercourse at Leon’s law office. The husband discovered the affair in mid-2016 and confronted Leon. Leon immediately terminated the affair and stopped representing the couple.

Leon did not return the couple’s retainer or filing fee, and the wife filed a grievance against him with the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel. Leon issued a refund to the couple in December 2017, about two months after the grievance was initiated.

Actions Broke Rules
Based on the grievance, the disciplinary counsel filed a complaint with the Board of Professional Conduct against Leon for violating rules governing the conduct of Ohio attorneys.

The parties stipulated to the facts and misconduct, and the board found Leon committed four rule violations, including failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and engaging in a sexual relationship with a client that was not a consensual sexual relationship that existed prior to the lawyer-client relationship.

The board recommended Leon receive a six-month fully stayed suspension.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court majority stated that because Leon had a sexual relationship with a client who was also the spouse of another client, neglected the clients’ legal matter for 17 months, lied to the client about the status of the matter, and waited 17 months to refund their fees, he deserved a harsher sanction.

The Court suspended Leon for one year with six month stayed, with the conditions that he commit no further misconduct and pay the costs of the proceedings.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Sharon L. Kennedy, Judith L. French, Patrick F. Fischer and Mary DeGenaro joined the majority opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Terrence O’Donnell wrote the parties and the board agreed to the fully stayed suspension, and he would support the decision. Justice R. Patrick DeWine joined Justice O’Donnell’s dissent.

2018-0536. Disciplinary Counsel v. Leon, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5090.

PWC agreed to pay Pigott 50 percent of any proceeds he collected from Gant, but Pigott did not put the agreement in writing as required by the professional conduct rules. By April 2013, he had collected $17,000 from Gant and distributed $8,500 to PWC. Between April 2013 and December 2014, he collected $10,500 from Gant, but he did not remit any of the money to PWC.

When PWC asked about the status of the Gant payments, Pigott replied that he would “settle up” at a later date. Instead of maintaining those funds in a client trust account, Pigott withdrew his fees and misappropriated the rest of the money, writing checks to himself, his firm, and his wife for personal and business expenses.

By March 2017, he paid PWC $3,250, still owing them $2,000, which he did not pay until the disciplinary counsel began investigating his client trust account activities. By November 2017, he paid PWC its share in full.

Client Funds Withheld
Pigott also represented Robert Falk in a civil matter that resulted in a $124,000 default judgment for Falk in 2007. Pigott agreed to help collect the judgment through wage garnishment in exchange for one-third of the proceeds — an agreement Pigott did not put in writing.

Pigott began collecting the payments every two weeks from September 2013 until August 2017, but did not disburse any money to Falk. When Falk inquired about the payments, Pigott promised to “settle up” with him at a later date.

At least $4,400 collected by Pigott through August 2017 belonged to Falk, but Falk was not paid until November 2017.

The disciplinary counsel charged Pigott with several rule violations, and the parties stipulated to several infractions, including failing to promptly deliver funds to a client unless the client agrees to a delay in writing, and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

Pigott testified that a medical condition in 2012 caused him to miss six months of work. Because he did not have disability insurance, he used the funds to cover family bills, he said. Both PWC’s leader and Falk told the board they were long-term clients and friends of Pigott, and they forgave him for his misconduct and had received restitution.

The parties and the board agreed to a six-month suspension, and the Court unanimously accepted it. In a per curiam opinion, the Court stated that in light of Pigott’s full acceptance of responsibility for his misconduct, his payment of restitution, and changes to the his client agreements, the six month suspension was appropriate.

2018-0815. Disciplinary Counsel v. Pigott, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5096.

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.