Login | January 20, 2019

The Ohio Supreme Court suspends two attorneys

DAN TREVAS
Supreme Court
Public Information Office

Published: December 31, 2018

The Ohio Supreme Court recently 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.

Leon Fails to Perform Work, Has Sex with Client

In February 2015, Leon was hired by a husband and wife to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. They paid him $1,850 in cash, which included $1,515 as an advance on his attorney fees. They promptly gave him all the documents he requested and informed him they were making payments on their home and cars in hopes of retaining those assets.

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.

The case is cited 2018-0536. Disciplinary Counsel v. Leon, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5090.

Pigott Fails to Deliver Payments

In 2011, Pigott represented Private Wealth Consultants (PWC) in a civil matter against Derick Gant and Gant Investment Advisors. The two businesses agreed to a settlement in which Gant would pay PWC $28,000 in installments.

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.

The case is cited 2018-0815. Disciplinary Counsel v. Pigott, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5096.


[Back]