Court: Ohio Supreme Court; February 4, 2009; Ohio; State Supreme Court
Kenneth Charles Podor, an attorney from Solon, Ohio, admitted to practice law in 1978, is recommended for a one-year suspension of his law license, stayed on conditions, after violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Specifically, he provided financial assistance to clients for living expenses during pending litigation, which is prohibited under DR 5-103(B). The Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association charged him with professional misconduct, leading to a hearing that dismissed two of the four counts against him. While the panel found insufficient evidence for one count, it confirmed that Podor violated DR 5-103(B) by advancing $19,800 to a long-time client, Carla White, which was later repaid from settlement proceeds. Although Podor claimed the advance was for her appearance in an IMMI commercial, this was not substantiated. Mitigating factors included a lack of dishonest intent, while aggravating factors included a prior disciplinary violation in 1995 and deceptive practices during the investigation. The board agreed with the panel’s recommendation but faced objections regarding the severity of the sanction, citing Podor's prior history and perceived lack of remorse. The conditions for the stayed suspension include completing six additional hours of continuing legal education in ethics and office management and avoiding further disciplinary violations.
The hearing panel did not find the respondent untruthful but labeled his testimony as "somewhat guarded," indicating reluctance to fully disclose motivations. The respondent attributed any ambiguity in his testimony to difficulty in articulating the financial arrangement with his clients. The board concluded that the respondent's financial assistance to the Whites breached DR 5-103(B). In determining sanctions for attorney misconduct, relevant factors include the violated duties, the lawyer's mental state, and similar case sanctions. The board's findings noted no dishonest or selfish motive on the respondent’s part, but acknowledged aggravating factors, including a prior disciplinary offense and inconsistent testimony regarding his motivations for the financial assistance. The primary goal of disciplinary action is to protect the public and assess the attorney’s fitness to practice. The respondent was given a one-year suspension, which is stayed on the condition that he completes six hours of continuing legal education in ethics and office management and avoids further violations. If these conditions are not met, the suspension will be enforced. Costs are to be borne by the respondent. Judges Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp concurred, while Chief Justice Moyer and Justice O'Connor dissented.
