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

Jones, Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v.
123 Ohio St.3d 285, 2009-Ohio-5029. Decided 10/1/2009.
Case Summaries- 148
Respondent opened an estate but failed for approximately 8 months to completely list next of kin,
identify estate assets and liabilities, and communicate with the client. Respondent is registered on
inactive status in Ohio since September 1, 2007, but is employed in the Washington, D.C. area as an inhouse
corporate counsel which according to him is a position that does not require admission in any
particular state. He agreed to represent a widow with respect to her husband‘s estate, which basically
involved transfer of an automobile title and their residential real estate. In late September 2006, he
deposited into his client trust account, a $3,710 fee advance from his client. He filed applications for
probate in the Mahoning County Probate Court. Over the succeeding months, the case languished. The
client tried at least 15 time times without success to contact him. At as status conference in late May
2007, respondent‘s client appeared but respondent did not because he had not received notice. The
decision of the magistrate faulted respondent for having failed to identify the client as the surviving
spouse on the next of kin form. The application for relief from administration was missing the
form listing estate assets and liabilities. The magistrate disapproved of the amount of respondent‘s fee
and his failure to obtain prior probate court approval. The magistrate advised the widow to obtain new
counsel and a refund and he advised her to file a grievance. Upon request by the new attorney for a
return of fee other than filing costs, respondent repaid all but $400 or $500. Relator dismissed a DR 2-
106(A) charge. Panel and board found violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2). In mitigation,
there was no prior discipline, he acknowledged wrongdoing, made restitution to the former client‘s
satisfaction, and cooperated. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (d). There were no aggravating
factors specified. Panel recommended a suspension for six months, stayed on condition of a one-year
monitored probation. Board recommended a public reprimand. The Supreme Court noted that
respondent took a disproportionately large fee to administer a simple probate estate and not perform the
work, and the client was unable to reach him despite 15 attempts. The Supreme Court accepted the
Board‘s findings of violations of DR 6-101(A)(3) and 7-101(A)(2), but rejected the Board‘s recommended
sanction, and instead ordered a suspension for six months stayed on condition of successfully completing
a one-year monitored probation under Gov.Bar R. V(9) and commit no further disciplinary infractions.
The suspension, stay, and probation will take effect upon respondent‘s return to active practice in Ohio
One justice dissented in favor of a public reprimand.
Rules Violated: DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(2)
Aggravation: NONE
Mitigation: (a), (c), (d)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension, stayed