Case Title: Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Biviano

Citation: 2015-Ohio-4308

Docket Number: 2015-0299

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-10-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Biviano, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-4308.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-4308 
TRUMBULL COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BIVIANO. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Biviano, Slip Opinion No.  
2015-Ohio-4308.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to promptly return unearned portion of 
retainer—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2015-0299—Submitted April 14, 2015—Decided October 21, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 
Court, No. 2014-044. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, William Richard Biviano of Warren, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0017984, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1974. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} In a complaint filed with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline1 on June 9, 2014, relator, Trumbull County Bar Association, 
alleged that Biviano violated five Rules of Professional Conduct in concluding his 
representation in a child-custody matter.  The parties entered into stipulations of 
fact, agreed that Biviano failed to promptly refund the unearned portion of his 
retainer in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e), agreed that the remaining alleged 
violations should be dismissed, and jointly recommended that Biviano be publicly 
reprimanded for his misconduct.  Based on the parties’ stipulations and Biviano’s 
testimony, the panel made findings of fact, found that Biviano’s conduct violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e), dismissed four other alleged rule violations, and 
recommended that Biviano be publicly reprimand for his misconduct.  The board 
adopted the panel report in its entirety.  We adopt the board’s findings of fact and 
misconduct and agree that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction in this 
case. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Jamie Smith retained Biviano to represent her in a child-custody 
matter in September 2010.  On January 10, 2012, Biviano sent Smith a letter 
stating that he understood that she had reconciled with the child’s father and 
requesting documentation from her so that he could close her file.  Smith 
responded to Biviano’s correspondence in a January 20, 2012 e-mail and 
requested that he close her file and return the unearned portion of her retainer. 
{¶ 4} On March 22, 2012, Smith again requested that Biviano close her 
file.  He responded that day, advising her that he would close her file and that she 
would be contacted.  Having heard nothing further from Biviano, Smith e-mailed 
him on July 24 and August 20, but she did not receive a response to either e-mail.  
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
Consequently, she filed a grievance with relator on September 24, 2012.  Biviano 
provided an itemized account of his billing in the matter and returned the 
unearned portion of Smith’s retainer on October 5, 2012. 
{¶ 5} The parties stipulated and the board found that Biviano violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e) by failing to promptly refund the unearned portion of his 
retainer. 
Sanction 
{¶ 6} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties the lawyer violated and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 
2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  We also weigh evidence of the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13). 
{¶ 7} Here the parties stipulated and the board found that the relevant 
mitigating factors include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence 
of a dishonest or selfish motive, Biviano’s timely good-faith effort to rectify the 
consequences of his misconduct, his full and free disclosure to the board and his 
cooperative attitude in the proceedings, and his good character and reputation 
apart from the charged misconduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (2), (3), (4), and 
(5). 
{¶ 8} In support of the recommended sanction of a public reprimand, the 
board cites Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kubyn, 121 Ohio St.3d 321, 2009-Ohio-1154, 
903 N.E.2d 1215 (publicly reprimanding an attorney who, on his discharge from 
employment, failed to take reasonably practicable steps to protect his client’s 
interests and failed to promptly return any unearned portion of his fee). 
{¶ 9} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and agree that 
a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction for Biviano’s misconduct. 
{¶ 10} Accordingly, William Richard Biviano is publicly reprimanded for 
his misconduct.  Costs are taxed to Biviano. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Flevares Law Firm, L.L.C., and William M. Flevares, for relator. 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A., and Jonathan E. Coughlan, for 
respondent. 
_________________