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

Ramos, Cleveland Bar Assn. v.119 Ohio St.3d 26, 2008-Ohio-3235. Decided 7/3/2008.Case Summaries- 262Panel considered the case on the parties‘ consent-to-discipline agreement. Panel accepted the agreementas did the Board. Respondent neglected one client‘s case and failed to properly maintain and account forfees the client advanced. In April 2004, respondent agreed to represent a client in a real estate dispute.The written agreement was that the client would advance $2,000 and would pay $150 per hour plusexpenses and respondent would send month invoices detailing legal fees and expenses. Respondent fileda complaint in common pleas court, the defendant moved to dismiss, and respondent filed a brief inopposition. The court converted the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. Respondentwas granted his request for an extension of time to oppose the motion but neglected to file the brief.The court granted the motion for summary judgment. Respondent moved the trial court to reinstate thecase which the court denied and respondent appealed the summary judgment which the court of appealsaffirmed the motion for summary judgment. Respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by failing to respondto the motion for summary judgment. Respondent violated DR 9-102(A) and 9-102(B)(3) by depositingthe retainer directly into his operating account instead of into a trust account and for failing to accountwith monthly invoices as promised. In mitigation, there is no prior discipline, he rectified his failure toaccount, he repaid his entire fee and tried to help the client with different options to resolve the real estatedispute, and he cooperated and acknowledged his misconduct. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and(d). In aggravation, the client‘s advanced age made him a vulnerable client. BCGD Proc.Reg.10(B)(1)(h). Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the consent to discipline agreement and ordered suspensionfor six months, stayed on condition of no further misconduct and completion of a six-month monitoredprobation.Rules Violated: DR 6-101(A)(3), 9-102(A), 9-102(B)(3)Aggravation: (h)Mitigation: (a), (c), (d)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: NO Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: NO Sanction: Six-month suspension, stayed