Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson

Citation: 2002-Ohio-1756

Docket Number: 20011650

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson, 95 Ohio St.3d 129, 2002-Ohio-1756.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HENDERSON. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson, 95 Ohio St.3d 129, 2002-Ohio-
1756.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with entire six months 
stayed — Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation — Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice — Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on 
fitness to practice law — Concealing or knowingly failing to disclose 
that which attorney is required by law to reveal while representing a 
client — Knowingly making a false statement of law or fact — Using 
letterhead implying partnership with another attorney. 
(No. 2001-1650 — Submitted January 9, 2002 — Decided May 1, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 00-31. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On September 27, 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 
filed a four-count amended complaint charging that respondent, Ronald R. 
Henderson of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0023880, violated several 
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, primarily relating to his 
representation of Kyle and Katia Kisseberth from 1994 through 1999.  
Respondent answered, and on November 6, 2000, the matter was heard by a panel 
of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme 
Court (“board”). 
{¶2} 
The parties stipulated that in 1993, Kyle and Katia Kisseberth filed 
a lawsuit against Eagle American Insurance, which had refused to pay a claim 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
made by the Kisseberths for the destruction of their jewelry store by fire.  Martin 
Mohler of Toledo and Robert Rutter of Cleveland represented the Kisseberths in 
the case.  After the jury found for Eagle American in March 1994, the Kisseberths 
met with respondent, who shared office space with Attorney Mohler, to discuss 
filing for bankruptcy protection.  Respondent and Mohler were not partners, but 
their letterhead read, “Law Offices [of] Mohler, Bingle & Henderson.” 
{¶3} 
The Kisseberths agreed to pay respondent a retainer of $1,500 plus 
$100 per hour for the bankruptcy.  In the meantime, in April 1994, the 
Kisseberths appealed the trial court’s decision in favor of Eagle American.  Three 
persons, Bonnie Kisseberth, Kyle’s mother, Christine Heatherly, his grandmother, 
and Nina Mull, a relative of Katia, advanced $4,500, $700, and $996, 
respectively, to pay for the transcript in the case.  The money was given to 
respondent, and he used it to pay for the transcript. 
{¶4} 
In May 1994, respondent filed the bankruptcy petition for the 
Kisseberths in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of 
Ohio, Western Division.  With the bankruptcy petition, respondent, as bankrupts’ 
counsel, filed the compensation statement required by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2016(b).  In 
that statement, respondent represented that his fee to the Kisseberths was $1,500 
plus $100 an hour, that he had so far received only $1,500, and that a source of 
other compensation would be “payment by relatives.” 
{¶5} 
In February 1995, the bankruptcy trustee appointed Rutter and 
Mohler as appellate counsel in the appeal against Eagle American.  In July 1995, 
the appeal was settled and in November 1995, Eagle American paid $45,000 to 
the bankruptcy trustee.  Rutter, as court-appointed appellate counsel, applied to 
the bankruptcy court for compensation, and the trustee paid him an amount that 
included reimbursement for the cost of the trial transcript. 
{¶6} 
Rutter then sent respondent $7,619.03 to cover the charges for the 
transcript, UPS fees, and $1,575.96 in court costs.  Respondent paid half the court 
January Term, 2002 
3 
costs and applied the balance to the $15,100 in fees that he said the Kisseberths 
owed him for the bankruptcy and several other matters.  Those matters included 
representation in the bankruptcy, services rendered in collection actions for the 
Kisseberths, services rendered in a subrogation suit against the Kisseberths by 
State Farm Insurance, services rendered in a matter involving Mid American 
Bank, and services in the Eagle American case.  There was no issue as to whether 
respondent rendered the services. 
{¶7} 
When the bankruptcy case was closed in August 1996, respondent 
had been paid $11,887 of the $15,100 that he claimed was owed, in December 
1997, he filed a collection suit in Lucas County against the Kisseberths for the 
balance. 
{¶8} 
The Kisseberths hired attorney Elliot Feit, who, in September 
1998, filed a motion to reopen the bankruptcy case.  The motion was granted, and 
the case was reopened.  Respondent then filed an application for fees in the 
bankruptcy court, and the Kisseberths filed a motion to require respondent to 
disgorge fees.  Respondent’s collection action was removed to the bankruptcy 
court. 
{¶9} 
After a hearing, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Richard L. Speer 
disallowed $12,812.02 of respondent’s claim for fees, awarded him $2,287.98 as 
fees for the bankruptcy, ordered him to disgorge $9,600 in attorney fees, and 
dismissed his collection claim against the Kisseberths.  On appeal, the United 
States District Court affirmed the order of the bankruptcy court. 
{¶10} The panel concluded that with respect to Count I of the complaint 
(failure to reimburse his client’s relatives for the cost of the trial transcript), 
respondent’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (a 
lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-
102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct adversely reflecting on the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law), and 7-102(A)(3) (in representing a client, a 
lawyer shall not conceal or knowingly fail to disclose that which he is required by 
law to reveal).  With respect to Count II, the panel found that relator had not 
proved by clear and convincing evidence that respondent had charged a clearly 
excessive fee.  The panel further concluded that clear and convincing evidence 
established the charge in Count III, that respondent had misrepresented to the 
bankruptcy court the amount of fees he intended to charge the Kisseberths, and 
thus respondent violated DR 7-102(A)(3) and 7-102(A)(5) (in representing a 
client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of law or fact).  The 
panel finally concluded with respect to Count IV that respondent’s use of a 
letterhead that implied that he was a partner with Mohler violated DR 2-102(B) (a 
lawyer shall not practice under a name that is misleading or a firm name 
containing names other than those of one or more lawyers in the firm except as 
otherwise provided) and 2-102(C) (a lawyer shall not hold himself out as being in 
partnership with other lawyers unless they are in fact partners). 
{¶11} The panel found in mitigation that respondent was a well-respected 
attorney and had no prior disciplinary offenses.  It recommended that respondent 
be suspended from the practice of law for one year with six months stayed.  The 
board adopted the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the panel. 
{¶12} On review of the record, we adopt the findings and conclusions but 
not the recommendation of the board.  There is no indication in the record that 
anyone disputes that respondent expended the hours he claims to have worked.  
The record also indicates that while the bankruptcy court ordered respondent to 
disgorge some of his fees, it found that respondent did not affirmatively act to 
conceal his fees.  Since this was a first violation, respondent is suspended from 
the practice of law for six months with the entire six months stayed.  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
January Term, 2002 
5 
DOUGLAS, LAZARUS, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs in judgment. 
MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., dissent. 
CYNTHIA A. LAZARUS, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for 
RESNICK, J. 
__________________ 
COOK, J., dissenting. 
{¶13} The majority’s imposition of a six-month suspension with the six 
months stayed insufficiently sanctions respondent for his misconduct.  I would 
adopt the sanction recommended by both the panel and the board and would 
suspend respondent for one year with six months stayed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Dianna M. Anelli, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
James D. Caruso, for respondent. 
__________________