Case Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Ellison

Citation: 2008-Ohio-1808

Docket Number: 20071999

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-04-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Ellison, 118 Ohio St.3d 128, 2008-Ohio-1808.] 
 
 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. ELLISON. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Ellison, 118 Ohio St.3d 128, 2008-Ohio-1808.] 
Attorneys at law – Misconduct – Neglect of entrusted legal matter – Conduct 
adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law – Conduct involving fraud, 
deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation – One-year suspension, stayed on 
conditions. 
(No. 2007-1999 — Submitted January 9, 2008 — Decided April 23, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-005. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Kathy Lee Ellison of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0033808, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1979.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
suspend respondent’s license to practice for six months, staying the suspension on 
conditions, based on findings that she failed to diligently pursue two clients’ cases 
and misled one of the clients about the disposition in her case.  We agree that 
respondent committed professional misconduct as found by the board; however, 
we impose the sanction to which respondent stipulated — a one-year suspension, 
stayed on conditions to ensure the ethical management of her practice. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Dayton Bar Association, charged respondent in a two-
count complaint with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, 
including DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving fraud, deceit, 
dishonesty, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that adversely 
reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a 
lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter).  A three-member panel of the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
board heard the case and accepted the parties’ stipulations of fact and misconduct 
and recommended the stayed six-month suspension.  The board adopted the 
panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. 
Misconduct 
Count I – The Parker Case 
{¶ 3} Ray Allen Parker retained respondent in July 1997 to represent him 
in a divorce.  The parties obtained a divorce decree in December of that year but 
had not by that time finalized a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) 
transferring to Parker one-half interest in his ex-wife’s 401(k) plan. 
{¶ 4} Before filing the QDRO in court, respondent had to obtain the 
401(k) plan administrator’s approval.  The administrator had rejected a proposed 
QDRO, and respondent had had to revise it.  The administrator still resisted, 
however, advising respondent in September 2000 that a restraining order 
precluded further negotiation.  Respondent persuaded the administrator to resume 
negotiations, but in November 2001, Parker’s ex-wife filed for bankruptcy, which 
further complicated the situation. 
{¶ 5} Respondent and opposing counsel at some point notified the 
domestic relations court that Parker’s ex-wife had rolled her 401(k) into an IRA 
and that they would soon file a QDRO dividing the proceeds.  She never followed 
through with obtaining the QDRO.  Parker eventually obtained his share of the 
retirement proceeds by hiring another lawyer. 
{¶ 6} Respondent explained to the hearing panel that she had spent 
“hours and hours and hours” on Parker’s case but “kind of gave up” because 
“everything was a problem.”  By failing to pursue the QDRO on Parker’s behalf, 
respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3). 
Count II – The Grismer Case 
{¶ 7} Christina L. Grismer retained respondent in July 2001 to sue her 
employer for employment discrimination.  In November 2002, after seeking relief 
January Term, 2008 
3 
before the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, respondent filed Grismer’s case in 
federal court.  In June 2004, the defendant-employer moved for summary 
judgment. 
{¶ 8} Respondent prepared and had her client execute an affidavit to 
oppose the motion for summary judgment.  She then transmitted a response to the 
motion to opposing counsel, but for some reason, she did not also file the 
response in court.  On September 8, 2004, a federal judge granted the employer’s 
motion for summary judgment as unopposed. 
{¶ 9} Sometime thereafter, Grismer contacted respondent to check on the 
status of her claim.  Respondent falsely replied that she “didn’t know anything.”  
Grismer checked back periodically, but respondent did not tell her of the adverse 
judgment until March 30, 2005, some six months after the decision.  Only when 
Grismer confronted respondent in her office on May 27, 2005, did respondent 
concede that she had “screwed up” and known for months about the summary 
judgment entry. 
{¶ 10} Respondent admitted to the hearing panel that she had misled her 
client about the federal court’s disposition.  She explained that she had had her 
own personal problems at the time, including the end of her own marriage, and 
did not want to deal with having lost Grismer’s case. 
{¶ 11} Respondent testified that she had received but did not immediately 
open an electronic notification of the court’s ruling.  She thus did not realize for 
some time that the court had granted summary judgment as unopposed.  But even 
when she realized the problem, respondent did not attempt to file anything to save 
Grismer’s claim. 
{¶ 12} Respondent’s dishonesty and inaction in the Grismer case violated 
DR 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), and 6-101(A)(3). 
Sanction 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 13} A lawyer’s violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) ordinarily requires an 
actual suspension from the practice of law; however, we have imposed a stayed 
suspension despite the dishonesty where sufficient mitigating circumstances are 
present.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Statzer, 101 Ohio St.3d 14, 2003-Ohio-6649, 800 
N.E.2d 1117, ¶ 6 and 21.  We follow this rule here but extend the suspension 
period to one year to provide respondent more time to show that she can manage 
her practice in accordance with ethical standards.  Our decision thus incorporates 
the sanction proposed by the parties. 
{¶ 14} Respondent has been in practice for 27 years, primarily 
representing domestic relations clients in and around Dayton who can ill afford an 
attorney.  Respondent’s practice, in which she handles approximately 100 
divorces each year, serves an important purpose in her community.  These cases 
can be complex and time-consuming, yet sometimes her clients do not pay.  In 
fact, Grismer had paid for only some expenses, money that respondent later 
repaid. 
{¶ 15} Respondent does have a public reprimand on her record for a 
previous instance of neglect, but that sanction is nearly 20 years old.  See Dayton 
Bar Assn. v. Ellison (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 131, 552 N.E.2d 930.  According to 
relator’s counsel, she is also respected by fellow practitioners for her commitment 
to those less fortunate, which promotes public confidence in the legal system.  
Finally, respondent cooperated completely in the disciplinary process, 
acknowledging her wrongdoing and expressing concomitant remorse. 
{¶ 16} These mitigating factors are relevant in determining an appropriate 
sanction.  We therefore accept the sanction and conditions to which she agreed.  
Respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for one year; however, 
the suspension will be stayed on the condition that respondent serve a one-year 
probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9).  During the probation, respondent shall 
(1) cooperate with an attorney assigned by relator to monitor and make 
January Term, 2008 
5 
recommendations for the responsible management of her office and practice and 
(2) attend a continuing legal education course on law office management.  If 
respondent fails to comply with the terms of the stay or probation, the stay will be 
lifted, and respondent shall serve the entire one-year suspension. 
{¶ 17} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
CUPP, J., dissents and would impose a six-month stayed suspension. 
__________________ 
Hochwalt & Schiff, L.L.C., and Thomas R. Schiff, for relator. 
Kathy L. Ellison, pro se. 
______________________