Case Title: Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kulbyn

Citation: 2009-Ohio-1154

Docket Number: 20082431

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-03-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kubyn, 121 Ohio St.3d 321, 2009-Ohio-1154.] 
 
 
 
LAKE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. KUBYN. 
[Cite as Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kubyn, 121 Ohio St.3d 321, 2009-Ohio-1154.] 
Attorney misconduct, including failing to promptly refund unearned fees upon 
discharge — Public reprimand. 
(No. 2008-2431 — Submitted January 14, 2009 — Decided March 19, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-003. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, R. Russell Kubyn of Painesville, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0029510, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1984.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
publicly reprimand respondent, based on findings that he failed upon discharge 
from employment to promptly refund unearned fees and to take reasonably 
practicable steps to protect his client’s interests.  We agree that respondent 
committed professional misconduct in violation of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct and that a public reprimand is appropriate. 
{¶2} 
Relator, Lake County Bar Association, charged respondent with 
professional misconduct in a one-count complaint.  A panel appointed by the 
board considered the case upon the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement, filed 
pursuant to Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  The panel accepted the agreement, found 
respondent in violation of ethical standards, and recommended the public 
reprimand.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and 
recommendation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Misconduct 
{¶3} 
Respondent admitted to having violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) and 
(e).  Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) requires lawyers, upon withdrawal or termination, to 
take reasonably practicable steps to protect the client’s interests, including 
delivering client papers and property to which the client is entitled.  With an 
exception not relevant here, Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e) requires lawyers, upon 
withdrawal or termination, to promptly return any part of a fee that has not been 
earned. 
{¶4} 
Respondent violated these rules in the course of his attorney-client 
relationship with Michael J. Butz, who hired respondent to represent him in his 
divorce and other matters.  Butz signed a fee agreement in late December 2006 
and pursuant to that contract, paid respondent $5,000.  Butz soon became 
dissatisfied with respondent’s services and discharged him on January 31, 2007. 
{¶5} 
Upon discharging respondent, Butz advised him that he had 
retained new counsel and asked respondent for an itemized billing and to return 
any unearned fees.  In late February 2007, Butz’s brother, another attorney, asked 
respondent again for an itemized billing and the return of unearned fees.  Butz’s 
brother wrote a second letter to the same effect early in March.  Respondent did 
not comply with these requests, and Butz’s new attorney had to recreate his file. 
{¶6} 
Respondent did reply, however, to a February 2007 request from 
his client’s new attorney for the Butz case file.  He claimed to have no duty to 
produce it because he had sent Butz copies of all the paperwork as it was 
generated or received, so Butz already had the complete file.  Respondent offered 
the same justification during the investigation of Butz’s grievance. 
{¶7} 
In March 2007, respondent sent an itemized bill to his client and 
refunded $1,032.50 in legal fees.  Because the itemized statement assessed 
charges for work done after Butz discharged him, respondent later repaid an 
additional $362.50. 
January Term, 2009 
3 
{¶8} 
We accept respondent’s admissions to the charged violations of 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) and (e). 
Sanction 
{¶9} 
In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel and 
board weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors of respondent’s case.  See 
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  According to the consent-to-discipline agreement, no 
aggravating factors are present.  Mitigating factors include that respondent has no 
prior disciplinary record, did not have a dishonest or selfish motive, has made a 
timely good-faith effort to rectify the consequences of his misconduct, and has 
cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), 
(b), (c), and (d).  The parties also agree that respondent’s good character and 
professional competence weigh in his favor, as does the fact that a mental 
disability contributed to cause his misconduct and has since been successfully 
treated.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e) and (g). 
{¶10} The parties have stipulated to and the panel and board 
recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct.  We 
accept this recommendation.  Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded for his 
violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d) and (e). 
{¶11} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
James P. Koerner, for relator. 
Murman & Associates and Michael E. Murman, for respondent. 
______________________