Case Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Zerner

Citation: 1999-Ohio-26

Docket Number: 19990807

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-11-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Zerner, 87 Ohio St.3d 226, 1999-Ohio-26.] 
 
 
 
 
 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. ZERNER. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Zerner (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 226.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct —  Permanent Disbarment — Continued 
overbilling of clients during the period of an ongoing investigation of 
similar practices. 
(No. 99-807 — Submitted July 28, 1999 — Decided November 10, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-109. 
 
On December 8, 1997, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a six-count 
complaint charging respondent, Richard E. Zerner of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0005274, with several disciplinary violations from July 1996 
through May 1997.  Respondent filed his answer, and a hearing was held before a 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme 
Court (“board”). 
 
Based on the evidence received at the hearing and the stipulations of the 
parties, the panel found with respect to Counts One and Four of the complaint that 
in July 1996 Lois and Charles Bendixen engaged respondent to represent 
Christopher Hedge, a juvenile and their ward, who had been charged with 
delinquency in the commission of burglary and other related crimes.  Respondent 
 
 
2
and the Bendixens orally agreed to a fee of $100 per hour and what respondent 
characterized as a non-refundable $500 “pure retainer” to ensure respondent’s 
availability when needed.  The Bendixens also employed respondent to defend 
against any claims that might be brought against them as a result of Hedge’s 
alleged criminal activity. 
 
After several court appearances Hedge entered pleas in December 1996 to 
burglary, receiving stolen property, and attempting to receive stolen property.  An 
investigation of other charges against Hedge was terminated without prosecution. 
 
The Bendixens paid respondent $29,745 for 129.25 hours of work, resulting 
in an effective rate of $230 per hour.  No evidence suggests that respondent refused 
other legal work or went to extraordinary lengths in order to be available for 
Hedge. 
 
While representing Hedge, respondent also represented Nathan Shulack, 
who was involved in the same delinquency matter.  Respondent charged the 
parents of Shulack $7,500 for 52.75 hours of work on Nathan’s behalf, resulting in 
an effective rate of $131 per hour. 
 
The panel concluded that by charging far in excess of the agreed $100 per 
hour and by obtaining a non-refundable retainer when he was not required to forgo 
other employment, respondent had charged the Bendixens a clearly excessive fee 
 
 
3
for his representation of Hedge and so violated DR 2-106 (a lawyer shall not 
charge a clearly excessive fee). 
 
In considering Count Three of the complaint, the panel found that the 
Bendixens paid respondent $750 to represent them in connection with the sale of 
their real estate located in Lucas County.  The $750 was to be used for title work.  
Respondent assisted the Bendixens at the real estate closing, but the title work was 
separately paid from the proceeds of the sale.  Respondent then told the Bendixens 
that he would apply the $750 to any work he did to defend them against restitution 
claims as a result of Hedge’s conduct.  However, respondent’s payment for the 
restitution defense was part of the $29,745 paid by the Bendixens in connection 
with the Hedge matter. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 1-102(A)(6) 
(conduct that adversely reflects upon an attorney’s fitness to practice law). 
 
The panel found with respect to Count Five of the complaint that in 
December 1996, Glenn and Katherine McDonald retained respondent and paid him 
$3,500 for assistance in processing their Medicaid applications and other matters.  
Respondent prepared a Living Will, a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, 
and a Power of Attorney for both Mr. and Mrs. McDonald.  However, respondent 
failed to prepare the Medicaid application in a timely manner and, as a result,  an 
 
 
4
employee of the nursing home where the McDonalds resided prepared the 
application for them.  Respondent advised the McDonalds that he would refund 
$1,000 of his fee but retain possession of the refund for a period of time so that 
they would not exceed the Ohio Department of Human Services resource 
allocation limit.  After the McDonalds were approved for Medicaid, respondent 
issued the $1,000 check to them.  The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct 
in attempting to mislead the Department of Human Services violated DR 1-
102(A)(4) and 1-102(A)(6). 
 
The panel reached no conclusions with respect to Count Two and found no 
clear and convincing evidence supporting the allegation of Count Six that 
respondent charged an excessive fee to the McDonalds. 
 
The panel noted that before these infractions occurred, relator had filed a 
complaint with respect to similar activities, which resulted in a two-year 
suspension from the practice of law.  Toledo Bar Assn. v. Zerner (1998), 84 Ohio 
St.3d 97, 702 N.E.2d 68. 
 
Given his previous sanction for similar conduct and respondent’s lack of 
remorse, the panel found little, if any, evidence of mitigating circumstances and 
recommended that respondent be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law 
with the mandatory two years of the indefinite suspension to run concurrently with 
respondent’s current 1998 suspension.  It further recommended that as one 
 
 
5
condition of readmission, respondent provide written assurance that he will provide 
each new client with a written letter of engagement, bill clients monthly, engage a 
third-party accounting service to maintain his financial records, and implement a 
computerized billing program. 
 
The board adopted the findings and conclusions of the panel but 
recommended that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law. 
__________________ 
 
Julia S. Wiley and Christopher F. Parker, for relator. 
 
Reginald S. Jackson, Jr., for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board and, in 
view of respondent’s continued overbilling during the period of an ongoing 
investigation of similar practices, we also adopt the recommendation of the board. 
 
Respondent is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., FARMER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent and would indefinitely 
suspend respondent. 
 
SHEILA G. FARMER, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, sitting for RESNICK, J.