04.09.2014 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Ramos, Cleveland Bar Assn. v.<br />

119 <strong>Ohio</strong> St.3d 26, 2008-<strong>Ohio</strong>-3235. Decided 7/3/2008.<br />

Case Summaries- 262<br />

Panel considered the case on the parties‘ consent-to-discipline agreement. Panel accepted the agreement<br />

as did the Board. Respondent neglected one client‘s case and failed to properly maintain and account for<br />

fees the client advanced. In April 2004, respondent agreed to represent a client in a real estate dispute.<br />

The written agreement was that the client would advance $2,000 and would pay $150 per hour plus<br />

expenses and respondent would send month invoices detailing legal fees and expenses. Respondent filed<br />

a complaint in common pleas court, the defendant moved to dismiss, and respondent filed a brief in<br />

opposition. The court converted the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. Respondent<br />

was granted his request for an extension <strong>of</strong> time to oppose the motion but neglected to file the brief.<br />

The court granted the motion for summary judgment. Respondent moved the trial court to reinstate the<br />

case which the court denied and respondent appealed the summary judgment which the court <strong>of</strong> appeals<br />

affirmed the motion for summary judgment. Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by failing to respond<br />

to the motion for summary judgment. Respondent violated DR 9-102(A) and 9-102(B)(3) by depositing<br />

the retainer directly into his operating account instead <strong>of</strong> into a trust account and for failing to account<br />

with monthly invoices as promised. In mitigation, there is no prior discipline, he rectified his failure to<br />

account, he repaid his entire fee and tried to help the client with different options to resolve the real estate<br />

dispute, and he cooperated and acknowledged his misconduct. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and<br />

(d). In aggravation, the client‘s advanced age made him a vulnerable client. BCGD Proc.Reg.<br />

10(B)(1)(h). <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ohio</strong> accepted the consent to discipline agreement and ordered suspension<br />

for six months, stayed on condition <strong>of</strong> no further misconduct and completion <strong>of</strong> a six-month monitored<br />

probation.<br />

Rules Violated: DR 6-101(A)(3), 9-102(A), 9-102(B)(3)<br />

Aggravation: (h)<br />

Mitigation: (a), (c), (d)<br />

Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NO<br />

Public Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension, stayed

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!