Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

[Cite as

Disciplinary Counsel v. McNamee,

119 Ohio St.3d 269, 2008-Ohio-3883.]

ISCIPLINARY

OUNSEL

AMEE

[Cite as

Disciplinary Counsel v. McNamee,

119 Ohio St.3d 269, 2008-Ohio-3883.]

Attorneys – Misconduct – Multiple disciplinary violations – Representing clientswith competing interests without full disclosure and without clients’waiver of conflict – Accepting employment despite probability that professional judgment will be affected by lawyer’s own interests –Continuing to represent client in pending litigation despite probabilitythat lawyer will be called as witness – One-year suspension, stayed oncondition.

(No. 2008-0400 – Submitted March 12, 2008 – Decided August 7, 2008.)O

ERTIFIED

EPORT

by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances andDiscipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-081._______________________

Per Curiam

{¶ 1}

Respondent, Michael Patrick McNamee of Beavercreek, Ohio,Attorney Registration No. 0043861, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in1990. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline hasrecommended that we suspend respondent’s license to practice for one year,conditionally staying the suspension, based on findings that he entered intobusiness transactions with clients and represented their competing interests inthose transactions, creating conflicts of interest in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We agree that respondent committed professionalmisconduct as found by the board and that a one-year suspension, all stayed, isappropriate.

UPREME

OURT OF

HIO

{¶ 2}

Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent in a two-countcomplaint with various violations of the Disciplinary Rules. A panel of threeboard members considered the case on the parties’ consent-to-disciplineagreement. See Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure onComplaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances andDiscipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”). Accepting the agreement, the panel found themisconduct to which the parties stipulated and recommended the one-yearsuspension, all stayed on the condition that respondent commit no furtherdisciplinary violations. The board adopted the findings of misconduct andrecommended sanction.Misconduct

{¶ 3}

Both counts of the complaint arose from a real-estate developmentproject in which respondent represented three investors and also had a personalfinancial interest.

Count One

{¶ 4}

In 1992, respondent and his siblings owned approximately 80 acresin Xenia Township, Ohio. Respondent, then an associate with the law firm of Pickrel, Shaeffer & Ebeling (“PS&E”), agreed to develop the McNamee propertyin a joint venture with Robert S. Arnold, a local builder and long-time client of the PS&E law firm.

The Arnold-McNamee Joint Venture

{¶ 5}

In January 1993, respondent transferred the McNamee property tothe Arnold-McNamee Joint Venture (“Arnold-McNamee”) with plans to developSummer Brooke, a series of single-family housing units, and to share in profitsfrom the sale of those properties. Arnold-McNamee valued the development landat $250,000, or $3,125 per acre. According to the Arnold-McNamee agreement,respondent agreed to “manage all of the legal affairs of [Arnold-McNamee],

January Term, 2008

review all contracts awarded for development of the Premises, and assist Arnoldas required with the operation of [Arnold-McNamee].”

{¶ 6}

Acting on behalf of Arnold-McNamee, respondent succeeded inhaving the McNamee property rezoned and annexed to the city of Xenia. Underthe new zoning, however, restrictions limited the development to 100 lots unlessthe developers constructed a second point of access to a main thoroughfare. Toobtain a site for the second entrance, respondent contacted neighbors John andDamaine Vonada, who owned approximately 40 acres contiguous to theMcNamee property, about becoming involved in the Summer Brookedevelopment project.

{¶ 7}

Respondent explained to the Vonadas that he was an attorney andhad joined Arnold in a venture to develop more than 100 new housing units on theMcNamee plat. He then explained zoning restrictions and Arnold-McNamee’sneed for a second entrance off the main road bordering the couple’s land. TheVonadas did not immediately commit to the Summer Brooke project, butrespondent prevailed upon them. When they did commit, the couple inquiredabout possibly buying some Summer Brooke lots to develop themselves.

The Arnold-Vonada Joint Venture

{¶ 8}

During their negotiations, respondent urged the Vonadas to enterinto a joint venture with Arnold. The Vonadas’ accountant advised against thatarrangement, recommending instead that the couple protect their personal assetsby forming an S corporation. The Vonadas disregarded the accountant’s advice,relying instead on respondent’s assurances that they needed no corporate shieldand that any lawsuits against the venture would target only Arnold, because of his“vast wealth” and “deep pockets.”

{¶ 9}

In April 1993, respondent prepared the Arnold-Vonada JointVenture (“Arnold-Vonada”) agreement, which generally tracked the terms of theArnold-McNamee agreement, including valuation of the properties. Respondent