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

Kubyn, Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v.121 Ohio St.3d 321, 2009-Ohio-1154. Decided 3/19/09.Case Summaries- 165Respondent failed to promptly return unearned fees upon discharge of employment and to take reasonablypracticable steps to protect his client‘s interests. The parties entered into a consent-to-disciplineagreement based on relator‘s one count complaint. In late December 2006, Michael J. Butz hiredrespondent to represent him in his divorce and other matters by signing a fee agreement and payingrespondent $5,000. Butz became dissatisfied with respondent and discharged him on January 31, 2007.Butz advised respondent that he had retained new counsel and asked respondent for an itemized billingand to return any unearned fees. In February 2007, Butz‘s brother, another attorney, askedrespondent again for an itemized billing and the return of unearned fees. Butz‘s brother wrote a secondletter to the same effect early in March. Respondent did not comply. Butz‘s new attorney had torecreate the file. Respondent replied to a February 2007 request from Butz‘s new attorney for the Butzcase file, but respondent claimed to have no duty to produce it because he sent Butz copies of all thepaperwork as it was generated or received, thus Butz had the complete case file. Respondent offered thesame justification during the investigation of Butz‘s grievance. In March 2007, respondent sent anitemized bill to his client and refunded $1,032.50 in legal fees. Respondent later paid Butz an additional$362.50 because the itemized statement assessed charges for work done after he was discharged. Thepanel and board accepted the consent to discipline agreement to a public reprimand for violations ofProf.Cond.R. 1.16(d) for failing to return his client‘s papers and property and Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e) forfailing to promptly return any unearned fees. According to the consent-to-discipline agreement, noaggravating factors were present. Mitigating factors included no prior disciplinary record, a lack of adishonest or selfish motive, a timely and good faith effort to rectify the consequences of his misconduct,cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings, and respondent‘s good character and professionalcompetence. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). The parties also agreed that a mentaldisability contributed to the cause of respondent‘s misconduct and has since been successfully treated.BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). The Supreme Court accepted the consent to discipline agreement and soordered a public reprimand.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d), 1.16(e)Aggravation: NONEMitigation: (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Public Reprimand