Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Holda

Citation: 2006-Ohio-5860

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-11-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Holda, 111 Ohio St.3d 418, 2006-Ohio-5860.] 
 
 
 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. HOLDA. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Holda, 111 Ohio St.3d 418, 2006-Ohio-5860.] 
Attorneys – Misconduct – Multiple disciplinary violations – Public reprimand. 
(No. 2006-1149 — Submitted August 8, 2006 — Decided November 29, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-084. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Sheri Lynn Holda of Ravenna, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0073993, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 2001. 
{¶ 2} On October 10, 2005, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with professional misconduct.  Respondent filed 
an answer to the complaint, and a panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline held a hearing on the complaint in April 2006.  The 
panel then prepared written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a 
recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} In August 2004, Patricia L. Hill retained respondent to represent 
her in a domestic-relations matter.  Hill paid a $2,000 retainer, but respondent did 
not deposit the money into an Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (“IOLTA”) 
account. 
{¶ 4} At the disciplinary hearing, respondent explained that she kept 
Hill’s $2,000 cash payment in a lock box at her home to keep those funds 
separated from her business account.  Respondent did not have an IOLTA account 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
at the time, and the payment from Hill in August 2004 was the first retainer that 
respondent ever accepted from a client. 
{¶ 5} During the representation, respondent failed to return Hill’s phone 
calls and failed to appear for two appointments with Hill.  Respondent also never 
filed the divorce complaint that Hill had asked her to file.  In October 2004, 
respondent claimed to have left documents at Hill’s place of employment, but Hill 
did not receive them.  In November 2004, Hill terminated respondent’s services 
and asked for a refund of the retainer and the return of her case file. 
{¶ 6} Respondent promised to return the retainer and the case file, and 
she promptly gave Hill a $2,000 check in November 2004, along with Hill’s 
original documents.  The $2,000 check was drawn on respondent’s business 
account rather than a client trust account. 
{¶ 7} When Hill tried to cash the $2,000 check, she learned that there 
were insufficient funds in respondent’s account to cover the check.  Hill 
complained to respondent, who suggested that Hill try to present the check a 
second time.  When Hill did so, she was again told by the bank that respondent’s 
business account contained insufficient funds to cover the check. 
{¶ 8} Hill then filed a small-claims complaint against respondent seeking 
the return of her retainer, and she also filed a grievance with relator against 
respondent.  On December 20, 2004, Hill was at last able to cash the $2,000 check 
from respondent. 
{¶ 9} After examining these actions, the board found that respondent had 
violated the following Disciplinary Rules: DR 2-110(A)(2) (requiring a lawyer to 
take reasonable steps to prevent damage or prejudice to a client before 
withdrawing from representation), 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
neglecting an entrusted legal matter), and 9-102(A) (requiring a lawyer to 
maintain client funds in a separate, identifiable bank account). 
Sanction 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 10} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  
The board found no aggravating factors, but did identify the following mitigating 
factors: the absence of any prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or 
selfish motive, respondent’s efforts to rectify the consequences of her misconduct 
by paying full restitution, her full and free disclosure to the board and her 
cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary process, and a letter supporting 
respondent’s good character and professionalism.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), 
(b), (c), (d), and (e). 
{¶ 11} Relator recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for six months, with the entire suspension stayed.  The panel and 
the board, however, both recommended the lesser sanction of a public reprimand.  
Neither party has filed objections to the board’s findings or its recommendation. 
{¶ 12} We have reviewed the board’s report and the record, and we accept 
the board’s findings and conclusions.  We also adopt the board’s recommended 
sanction. 
{¶ 13} Respondent readily acknowledged at the disciplinary hearing that 
she should have established an IOLTA account, and she admitted that she was a 
“very bad bookkeeper” who did not keep close tabs on the balance in her business 
checking account in 2004.  At the disciplinary hearing in April 2006, however, 
respondent testified that she has established an IOLTA account, and she now 
relies on a computer program to help her keep track of her bank account balances.  
That testimony, which is supported by a letter in the record from Judge Brenda 
Burnham Unruh, suggests that respondent has remedied her lax bookkeeping 
practices and no longer keeps unearned client money locked in a box at her home.  
Those steps, together with relator’s helpful offer to provide a mentor to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
respondent to assist her with office-management issues, should minimize the 
likelihood of any similar misconduct by respondent in the future. 
{¶ 14} We agree with the board that respondent’s misconduct warrants a 
public reprimand.  The board cited no aggravating factors that might prompt us to 
impose a harsher sanction, and it did identify several significant mitigating 
circumstances, including the absence of any dishonesty or selfishness on the part 
of respondent, as well as her cooperative attitude.  We have ordered a public 
reprimand in similar circumstances.  See, e.g., Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Hardiman, 100 Ohio St.3d 260, 2003-Ohio-5596, 798 N.E.2d 369 (public 
reprimand imposed for three disciplinary violations where no aggravating 
circumstances were shown and where the lawyer had committed no prior 
disciplinary violations and had provided significant pro bono services to her 
community and the legal profession); Dayton Bar Assn. v. Schram, 98 Ohio St.3d 
512, 2003-Ohio-2063, 787 N.E.2d 1184 (public reprimand was appropriate 
sanction for attorney’s conduct in charging a nonrefundable fee and failing to 
promptly return the unearned portion where attorney had no prior disciplinary 
record, cooperated in the disciplinary process, and made restitution to the client); 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Randolph (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 325, 708 N.E.2d 192 
(public reprimand was appropriate sanction for attorney’s collection of an 
excessive fee and his failure to promptly return client funds where the misconduct 
was an isolated act, the client’s funds were returned, and the attorney had 
accepted complete responsibility for his actions). 
{¶ 15} Accordingly, respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs 
are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
January Term, 2006 
5 
 
Vincent J. Alfera and Dianne R. Newman, for relator. 
 
John A. Casalinuovo, for respondent. 
______________________