disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Holda, Akron Bar Assn. v.
125 Ohio St.3d 140, 2010-Ohio-1469. Decided 4/7/2010.
Case Summaries- 127
In 2006, respondent received a public reprimand for failing to maintain a retainer in a separate
trust account, neglecting a legal matter, and failing to properly refund a retainer upon termination of
the representation. Akron Bar Assn. v. Holda, 111 Ohio St.3d 418, 2006-Ohio-5860. Now,
respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in the representation of two clients and
failed to deliver the case file to one of the clients. In Count I, in December 2008, a client retained
respondent to handle a release from administration of his father‘s estate. The client gave respondent the
signed probate documents, the will, and a $1000 retainer. The respondent put the $1000 in her IOLTA
account, but withdrew it after a few months. Respondent never filed an estate case. The client
terminated respondent and hired a new attorney. In June 2008, the new attorney requested the case file,
but respondent did not turn it over until late September 2008. The Board adopted the panel‘s
findings of violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 and 1.16(d). Rule 1.16(d) was a charged violation that
relator dismissed at the hearing. Under Millonig (1999), the panel could find a violation of Prof.Cond.R.
1.16(d) because violations originally charged but withdrawn by relator at the hearing can be found by the
panel. In Count II, in June 2008 a client paid the respondent $1500 to pursue custody of the client‘s
grandchild. Respondent filed the motion and was notified of the date and time of the status hearing.
Respondent failed to appear at the hearing and did not advise the court or her client that she would be late
or unable to attend. Later, respondent agreed to file objections to the magistrate‘s order, but failed to do
so. Board adopted the panel‘s finding of a violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.3. In aggravation, the
respondent had a prior public reprimand. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a). In mitigation, there was a lack
of a dishonest or selfish motive, an agreement to make restitution, a cooperative attitude toward the
disciplinary process, and several letters attesting to the respondent‘s good character. BCGD Proc.Reg.
10(B)(2)(b), (c), (d), and (e). In further mitigation, the panel was impressed that the respondent had
moved her practice in with another attorney who will monitor her work and provide a structured
environment and support staff. The board adopted the panel‘s recommended sanction of a one-year
suspension, stayed on the conditions that respondent submit to an OLAP contract during the period of her
stayed suspension, submit to the monitoring of her practice by relator during the stayed suspension, and
take additional CLE training in law office management program; and refund $1,000 to one client and
$1,500 to the other. The court noted that this case involves less egregious conduct than Lowden (2005)
(two-year conditionally stayed suspension), but warrants a harsher sanction than Watson (2005) (sixmonth
conditionally stayed suspension) because of respondent‘s prior discipline. The court adopted and
so ordered the board‘s recommended sanction, but added the extra condition that respondent make
restitution of the retainers to both clients by June 1, 2010.
Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.16(d)
Aggravation: (a)
Mitigation: (b), (c), (d), (e).
Prior Discipline: YES Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: One-year suspension, stayed