Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown. 2 [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 3 Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension with petition 4 for reinstatement conditioned upon complete restitution -- 5 Conviction of grand theft and theft. 6 (No. 95-2124 -- Submitted December 6, 1995 -- Decided February 28, 7 1996.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 8 9 and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 93-61. 10 In a complaint filed October 18, 1993, relator, Office of Disciplinary 11 Counsel, charged respondent, Perry Lowell Brown of Eaton, Ohio, Attorney 12 Registration No. 0037877, with one count of professional misconduct. A 13 panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the 14 Supreme Court ( board ) heard the matter on June 12, 1995. 15 Although respondent did not attend the panel hearing, the parties 16 stipulated to his violation of DR 1-102(A)(3) (illegal conduct involving 17 moral turpitude), 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 18 or 19 administration of justice), 7-102(A) (failure to represent client within misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (conduct prejudicial to the 1 bounds of the law), and 9-102 (failure to preserve client s funds and 2 property). 3 converted $9,748.88 from the Estate of Emory W. McIntyre in 1992 while 4 employed by Eaton National Bank and Trust Co. (the bank ), the executor 5 of the estate. Respondent had been entrusted with the executor s duties and 6 responsibilities while employed as a trust officer and in-house legal counsel 7 for the bank. He converted the funds by writing eight checks to himself 8 and depositing each in his personal bank account. Respondent s thefts were 9 discovered in 1993, and he subsequently returned $6,365.55 to the bank, as 10 a result of cashing in his pension and IRA accounts; the remaining balance 11 of $3,383.33 apparently was also repaid, but from other sources. Respondent stipulated to this misconduct because he had 12 The parties also stipulated to respondent s violation of DR 1- 13 102(A)(3), (4) and (6) (conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice 14 law) based on the following stipulated facts: 15 16 17 18 [1.] On February 8, 1994, [r]espondent *** was indicted by a Preble County Grand Jury in a six[-]count Indictment: COUNT I: Grand Theft (felony of the third degree), in violation of [R.C.] 2913.02(A)(2), for the taking of monies from the Preble 2 1 County 4-H Committee in the sum of $ 6,158.61 between March 25, 1992 2 through June 2, 1993[.] 3 COUNT II: Attempted Theft ([m]isdemeanor of the first 4 degree), [R.C.] 2923.02 (A), for the attempt of the taking of monies in the 5 sum of $ 1,150.00[.] 6 COUNT III: Theft (felony of the fourth degree), [R.C.] 7 2913.02(A)(2), for the taking of monies from the St. Clair Foundation in 8 the sum of $850.00[.] 9 COUNT IV: Theft (felony of the fourth degree), [R.C.] 10 2913.02(A)(2), for the taking of monies from the Humane Society of Preble 11 County, Inc. in the sum of $ 3,500.00[.] 12 COUNT V:Theft (felony of the fourth degree), [R.C.] 13 2913.02(A)(2), for the taking of monies from the KI-OP Account (Kiwanis 14 Optimists Club) in the sum of $ 623.83[.] 15 COUNT VI: Grand Theft (felony of the third degree), [R.C.] 16 2913.02 (A) (2), for the taking of monies from the Estate of Emory W. 17 McIntyre and/or Eaton National Bank and Trust Co. in the sum of 18 $9,748.88[.] 3 1 *** 2 [2.] Pursuant to negotiations, *** [r]espondent *** [pled guilty] to 3 Counts I and III [sic, VI] of the Indictment, both being felonies of the third 4 degree. 5 remaining counts (Counts II, III, IV and V). 6 [r]espondent agreed to pay restitution on all six counts. Upon entering said pleas, the [s]tate of Ohio dismissed the As part of his plea, 7 [3.] On July 8, 1994, [r]espondent was sentenced *** to two *** 8 years[ ] incarceration on both counts (Count[s] I and VI), with said 9 sentences to run and be served concurrently. The sentence was duly 10 suspended and [r]espondent ordered to be placed on probation for five *** 11 years upon certain terms, including: cooperation with Disciplinary Counsel; 12 restitution in the sum of *** [$11,700.55]; and two hundred and fifty hours 13 *** [of] community service. 1 14 The panel found that respondent had violated the Disciplinary Rules, 15 as stipulated. In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel 16 considered (1) the parties joint suggestion that respondent receive an 17 indefinite suspension, (2) that respondent had repaid the stolen funds to all 18 of his victims, except the Eaton National Bank and Trust Co., to which he 4 1 still owed $3,585, with part or all of this amount, the record being unclear, 2 reflecting the bank s costs in investigating the thefts, and (3) that he had 3 cooperated fully with police officials and prosecution authorities. The panel 4 recommended that respondent receive an indefinite suspension from the 5 practice of law and that complete restitution, not only to Eaton National 6 Bank and Trust Co., but to respondent s grandparents from whom he had 7 borrowed funds to repay his victims, be a condition for his reapplication to 8 the practice of law. 9 10 11 12 The board adopted the panel s report, including its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended sanction. Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 13 Perry Lowell Brown, pro se. 14 Per Curiam. We concur in the findings of misconduct and 15 recommendation of the board. Respondent, Perry Lowell Brown, is hereby 16 indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio, with any petition 17 for reinstatement conditioned upon complete restitution to the Eaton 18 National Bank and Trust Co. and reimbursement to respondent s 5 1 grandparents for all monies borrowed to make restitution. Costs taxed to 2 respondent. Judgment accordingly. 3 4 MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur. 5 RESNICK, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., dissent and would disbar. 6 1 On November 3, 1994, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(3), respondent was suspended indefinitely from the practice of law for his felony convictions. In re Brown (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1401, 640 N.E.2d 1146. 6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
