TO BE PUBLISHED
oisuprritir Gurf iifTcfirttfuritv 2014-SC-000300-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT
V. IN SUPREME COURT
SUZANNE PRIEUR LAND RESPONDENT KBA Member No. 90752
OPINION AND ORDER
Suzanne P. Land was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky on June 3, 2005. Her bar roster address is 2231 Hawes Drive,
Hebron, Kentucky 41048, and her KBA number is 90752. The Ohio Supreme
Court indefinitely suspended Land from the practice of law on March 27,
2014. 1 On June 9, 2014, the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) filed a petition
asking this Court to order Land to show cause why we should not impose
reciprocal discipline and, in the event we found cause lacking, to impose that
discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.435. On September 18,
2014, we issued a show cause order. Land has not responded; therefore, we
grant the KBA's petition to impose reciprocal discipline.
1 Disciplinary Counsel v. Land, 6 N.E.3d 1183 (Oh. 2014) I. BACKGROUND.
Land's Ohio discipline arose from her handling of three estates. We
briefly set forth below what occurred.
1. The Hassman. Estate.
During his life James Hassman personally guaranteed lines of credit
through First Financial Bank for two businesses, and he purchased a
condominium. At the time of Hassman's death, there was an outstanding
balance on the First Financial Bank lines of credit and an outstanding
mortgage of approximately $800,000 on the condominium. The administrator
of Hassman's estate transferred funds from one of the companies and depleted
the estate account in order to pay off the mortgage. First Financial Bank then
sued the estate and the estate brought a legal malpractice claim against Land
and her law firm. In that malpractice claim, the estate alleged that Land had
either directly advised the administrator to pay off the mortgage or had failed to
advise the administrator against doing so. In her defense, Land claimed that
she had advised the administrator against paying off the mortgage, and she
fabricated an e-mail to that effect, making it look as if she had sent the e-mail
to the administrator two years earlier. During the malpractice litigation, a
document examiner confirmed the fabrication, and Land eventually admitted to
the fraud.
2 2. The Lienhart Estate.
As part of an estate plan for Frank Lienhart, Land drafted a limited
liability operating agreement which was supposed to result in a savings in
estate taxes. After Lienhart's death, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) found
that the language in the operating agreement was deficient, and it denied the
tax benefit, costing the estate approximately $200,000. Land then created an
"amendment" to the operating agreement to correct the deficiency. She dated
the amendment for a time prior to Lienhart's death; forged Lienhart's and his
son's signatures on the amendment; and submitted the amendment to the IRS
along with her affidavit authenticating the amendment. Land ultimately
admitted to the fraud.
3. The Schloss Estate.
Land created a similar operating agreement for Milton Schloss and,
because of the agreement's deficiencies, the estate suffered an additional
$600,000 to $700,000 tax liability. As she did in the Lienhart estate, Land
attempted to hide her mistake by creating an amendment to the operating
agreement. Land sent to the IRS the fraudulent amendment, her affidavit
authenticating the amendment, and letters to the client and a business
appraiser which she had fabricated. Again, Land ultimately admitted to the
fraud.
3 4. The Ohio Disciplinary Proceedings.
Based on her actions in the above referenced estate matters, Land pled
guilty in March 2012 to corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due
administration of the Internal Revenue Code. In August 2012, a federal court
sentenced her to five years probation.
When the Ohio Supreme Court received notification of Land's conviction,
it imposed an interim felony suspension. Thereafter, the Ohio disciplinary
counsel filed a complaint against Land alleging that she had violated a number
of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct (Prof.Cond.R.). 2 A panel of the Ohio
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (the Board of
Commissioners) conducted a hearing and heard testimony from Land, two
character witnesses, and a licensed social worker from the Ohio Lawyers
Assistance Program (OLAP). During the hearing, Land testified that, at the
time of her misconduct, she was abusing alcohol and prescription anti-anxiety
medication in order to deal with the stresses of work. The OLAP social worker
testified that Land had undergone an assessment, and Land's therapist
testified about the treatment being provided to Land.
2 The disciplinary counsel alleged that Land violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b)
("commit[ting] an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty or trustworthiness"); 8.4(c)("engage[ing] in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation"); 8.4 (d)("engage[ing] in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice"); and 8.4(h)("engage[ing] in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law"). Kentucky does not have a counterpart to Ohio Rule 8.4(h); however, the other three Ohio Rules are similar to SCR 3.130- 8.4(b) and (c).
4 Following the hearing, the Board of Commissioners found Land had
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b),(c),(d), and (h). The Board of Commissioners also
found Land had been cooperative, had no prior disciplinary record, and had
produced evidence of good character and reputation. Based on the evidence
and stipulations entered into by Land and the Board of Commissioners, the
parties agreed Land should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law,
and she should not be permitted to apply for reinstatement of her license until
she completes her federal probation. Furthermore, the Board of
Commissioners recommended that, prior to reinstatement, Land must present
proof she completed her contract with OLAP or is in compliance with that
contract, and that she is continuing to receive therapy or that a therapist has
determined that therapy is no longer necessary. The Ohio Supreme Court
adopted the Board of Commissioner's findings and imposed the recommended
discipline.
5. The Kentucky Disciplinary Proceedings.
Pursuant to SCR 3.166, the KBA notified this Court of Land's felony
conviction, and we automatically suspended her license on August 14, 2012.
Pursuant to. SCR 3.435, Land notified the KBA of the March 2014 order of the
Ohio Supreme Court indefinitely suspending her license. The KBA then moved
this Court to impose reciprocal discipline.
Land is subject to identical reciprocal discipline in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky unless she proves by substantial evidence: (a) a lack of jurisdiction or
5 fraud in the Ohio disciplinary action; or (b) that her misconduct warrants
substantially different discipline in this Commonwealth. SCR 3.435(4). We
have no grounds to find a lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the Ohio disciplinary
action. Furthermore, we do not find any reason to impose substantially
different discipline in Kentucky.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
TO BE PUBLISHED
oisuprritir Gurf iifTcfirttfuritv 2014-SC-000300-KB
KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION MOVANT
V. IN SUPREME COURT
SUZANNE PRIEUR LAND RESPONDENT KBA Member No. 90752
OPINION AND ORDER
Suzanne P. Land was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky on June 3, 2005. Her bar roster address is 2231 Hawes Drive,
Hebron, Kentucky 41048, and her KBA number is 90752. The Ohio Supreme
Court indefinitely suspended Land from the practice of law on March 27,
2014. 1 On June 9, 2014, the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) filed a petition
asking this Court to order Land to show cause why we should not impose
reciprocal discipline and, in the event we found cause lacking, to impose that
discipline pursuant to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 3.435. On September 18,
2014, we issued a show cause order. Land has not responded; therefore, we
grant the KBA's petition to impose reciprocal discipline.
1 Disciplinary Counsel v. Land, 6 N.E.3d 1183 (Oh. 2014) I. BACKGROUND.
Land's Ohio discipline arose from her handling of three estates. We
briefly set forth below what occurred.
1. The Hassman. Estate.
During his life James Hassman personally guaranteed lines of credit
through First Financial Bank for two businesses, and he purchased a
condominium. At the time of Hassman's death, there was an outstanding
balance on the First Financial Bank lines of credit and an outstanding
mortgage of approximately $800,000 on the condominium. The administrator
of Hassman's estate transferred funds from one of the companies and depleted
the estate account in order to pay off the mortgage. First Financial Bank then
sued the estate and the estate brought a legal malpractice claim against Land
and her law firm. In that malpractice claim, the estate alleged that Land had
either directly advised the administrator to pay off the mortgage or had failed to
advise the administrator against doing so. In her defense, Land claimed that
she had advised the administrator against paying off the mortgage, and she
fabricated an e-mail to that effect, making it look as if she had sent the e-mail
to the administrator two years earlier. During the malpractice litigation, a
document examiner confirmed the fabrication, and Land eventually admitted to
the fraud.
2 2. The Lienhart Estate.
As part of an estate plan for Frank Lienhart, Land drafted a limited
liability operating agreement which was supposed to result in a savings in
estate taxes. After Lienhart's death, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) found
that the language in the operating agreement was deficient, and it denied the
tax benefit, costing the estate approximately $200,000. Land then created an
"amendment" to the operating agreement to correct the deficiency. She dated
the amendment for a time prior to Lienhart's death; forged Lienhart's and his
son's signatures on the amendment; and submitted the amendment to the IRS
along with her affidavit authenticating the amendment. Land ultimately
admitted to the fraud.
3. The Schloss Estate.
Land created a similar operating agreement for Milton Schloss and,
because of the agreement's deficiencies, the estate suffered an additional
$600,000 to $700,000 tax liability. As she did in the Lienhart estate, Land
attempted to hide her mistake by creating an amendment to the operating
agreement. Land sent to the IRS the fraudulent amendment, her affidavit
authenticating the amendment, and letters to the client and a business
appraiser which she had fabricated. Again, Land ultimately admitted to the
fraud.
3 4. The Ohio Disciplinary Proceedings.
Based on her actions in the above referenced estate matters, Land pled
guilty in March 2012 to corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due
administration of the Internal Revenue Code. In August 2012, a federal court
sentenced her to five years probation.
When the Ohio Supreme Court received notification of Land's conviction,
it imposed an interim felony suspension. Thereafter, the Ohio disciplinary
counsel filed a complaint against Land alleging that she had violated a number
of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct (Prof.Cond.R.). 2 A panel of the Ohio
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (the Board of
Commissioners) conducted a hearing and heard testimony from Land, two
character witnesses, and a licensed social worker from the Ohio Lawyers
Assistance Program (OLAP). During the hearing, Land testified that, at the
time of her misconduct, she was abusing alcohol and prescription anti-anxiety
medication in order to deal with the stresses of work. The OLAP social worker
testified that Land had undergone an assessment, and Land's therapist
testified about the treatment being provided to Land.
2 The disciplinary counsel alleged that Land violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b)
("commit[ting] an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty or trustworthiness"); 8.4(c)("engage[ing] in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation"); 8.4 (d)("engage[ing] in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice"); and 8.4(h)("engage[ing] in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law"). Kentucky does not have a counterpart to Ohio Rule 8.4(h); however, the other three Ohio Rules are similar to SCR 3.130- 8.4(b) and (c).
4 Following the hearing, the Board of Commissioners found Land had
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b),(c),(d), and (h). The Board of Commissioners also
found Land had been cooperative, had no prior disciplinary record, and had
produced evidence of good character and reputation. Based on the evidence
and stipulations entered into by Land and the Board of Commissioners, the
parties agreed Land should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law,
and she should not be permitted to apply for reinstatement of her license until
she completes her federal probation. Furthermore, the Board of
Commissioners recommended that, prior to reinstatement, Land must present
proof she completed her contract with OLAP or is in compliance with that
contract, and that she is continuing to receive therapy or that a therapist has
determined that therapy is no longer necessary. The Ohio Supreme Court
adopted the Board of Commissioner's findings and imposed the recommended
discipline.
5. The Kentucky Disciplinary Proceedings.
Pursuant to SCR 3.166, the KBA notified this Court of Land's felony
conviction, and we automatically suspended her license on August 14, 2012.
Pursuant to. SCR 3.435, Land notified the KBA of the March 2014 order of the
Ohio Supreme Court indefinitely suspending her license. The KBA then moved
this Court to impose reciprocal discipline.
Land is subject to identical reciprocal discipline in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky unless she proves by substantial evidence: (a) a lack of jurisdiction or
5 fraud in the Ohio disciplinary action; or (b) that her misconduct warrants
substantially different discipline in this Commonwealth. SCR 3.435(4). We
have no grounds to find a lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the Ohio disciplinary
action. Furthermore, we do not find any reason to impose substantially
different discipline in Kentucky. Therefore, Land is indefinitely suspended
from the practice of law in Kentucky. If Land seeks and receives reinstatement
of her license in Ohio, she may seek reinstatement of her license in the
Commonwealth. As in Ohio, any reinstatement is contingent on Land
completing her federal probation, her compliance with her OLAP contract, and
her continued or successful completion of therapy.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Suzanne P. Land is SUSPENDED from the practice of law in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky until she demonstrates that her suspension
from the Ohio Supreme Court has been lifted. At that time, Land may
apply for reinstatement pursuant to SCR 3.510;
2. Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Land shall, within ten days from the entry
of this Opinion and Order, notify all clients in writing of her inability to
represent them, and notify all courts in which she has matters pending
of her suspension from the practice of law, and furnish copies of said
letters of notice to the Director of the Kentucky Bar Association,
assuming that this is necessary given that she was already suspended
from the practice of law;
6 - 3. Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Land shall, to the extent possible and
necessary, immediately cancel and cease any advertising activities in
which she is engaged;
4. Pursuant to SCR 3.390, Land shall not, during the term of
suspension, accept new clients or collect unearned fees; and
5. In accordance with SCR 3.450, Land shall pay all costs associated
with these disciplinary proceedings against her and for which execution
may issue from this Court upon finality of this Opinion and Order.
Minton, C.J; Abramson, Cunningham, Keller, Noble and Venters, JJ.,
sitting. All concur.
ENTERED: February 19, 2015.
CH JUSTICE 011C""° 1