Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Grote

Citation: 2010-Ohio-4833

Docket Number: 20100737

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-10-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Grote, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-4833.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-4833 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. GROTE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Grote,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-4833.] 
Attorney misconduct, including failing to provide competent representation, 
failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, failing to 
keep client informed — Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2010-0737 ⎯ Submitted July 6, 2010 ⎯ Decided October 7, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-054. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Jane M. Grote, Attorney Registration No. 0000745, 
was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1976. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint against 
respondent charging her with violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for 
her behavior after she was hired by a client to handle a divorce. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 3} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline heard the case and found clear and convincing evidence that 
respondent violated seven Rules of Professional Conduct.  The panel also 
dismissed one charge, finding that it was not proven by clear and convincing 
evidence.  The panel recommended that respondent be suspended indefinitely 
from the practice of law in Ohio.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommended sanction.  We adopt the findings, 
conclusions, and recommendation of the board, and impose an indefinite 
suspension from the practice of law in Ohio. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} This case arises out of respondent’s behavior after she was hired 
by a client to handle a divorce in July 2007.  The client paid respondent an initial 
$500, and respondent informed the client that the total fees would not exceed 
$1,500.  There was no written fee contract and no discussion about court costs and 
filing fees. 
{¶ 5} The client promptly gave respondent the personal and financial 
information necessary to initiate the divorce proceedings.  Respondent took that 
information and prepared a draft separation agreement and a shared-parenting 
plan, mailed them to the client, and requested that the client review the documents 
and indicate any suggested changes.  The client did so, and returned the 
documents in January 2008. 
{¶ 6} After the client returned the documents, respondent did not 
respond to the client; in fact, she admits that she did not communicate with the 
client for the rest of 2008.  During that time, the client called and left messages 
with respondent’s secretary and on respondent’s voicemail.  In January 2009, the 
client sent respondent a letter by certified mail asking about the status of the 
divorce.  The letter also informed respondent that the client’s husband had been 
selling off their assets and keeping the money and that soon there would be no 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
assets left.  Respondent admits that she received the certified letter but that she 
still did not communicate with the client. 
{¶ 7} Receiving no response from respondent, the client contacted the 
Better Business Bureau in early 2009 regarding respondent’s behavior.  The 
Better Business Bureau referred her to the Cincinnati Bar Association to file a 
grievance.  The Better Business Bureau did write respondent a letter about the 
client’s complaint, but respondent still did not contact the client.  Finally, after the 
Cincinnati Bar Association began investigating the grievance filed against her, 
respondent sent the client a letter apologizing for her inaction and refunded the 
$500 retainer. 
{¶ 8} At the hearing before the panel, respondent admitted that she had 
not deposited the $500 retainer into an IOLTA account.  She admitted that she did 
not have professional-liability insurance when she undertook representation of the 
client and did not notify the client that she did not have insurance.  See 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c).  Respondent further admitted at the hearing that she still had 
not obtained professional-liability insurance or notified her clients that she lacked 
insurance. 
{¶ 9} Respondent does not dispute most of the allegations in this case.  
She admits that she did not do what she was hired to do and did not advise her 
clients of her lack of insurance.  Respondent explained that her failure to 
communicate with the client began after she accidentally placed the client’s file 
into a pile of closed files.  She explained that the neglect continued even after she 
realized her mistake, because at that point in her life she was busy with other 
matters and personal issues.  When respondent received the client’s certified 
letter, she realized that she had let the situation get out of hand and did not know 
what to do, so she did nothing. 
{¶ 10} Respondent does dispute the allegation that she should have put the 
$500 in her IOLTA account, arguing to the panel that she felt that it was not 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
necessary to put the money into her IOLTA account because she had earned the 
fee.  But that argument is incorrect.  She received the money before she did any 
work for the client, and therefore it was unearned and should have been deposited 
into an IOLTA account. 
{¶ 11} Respondent explained that she did not purchase professional-
liability insurance and did not notify her clients that she lacked insurance, because 
it “was something [she] hadn’t paid that much attention to.”  She explained that 
she continued this misconduct, even after the investigation into her conduct 
began, because she was not sure how much longer she would be allowed to 
practice law and did not have many new clients. 
{¶ 12} We agree with the board that respondent’s conduct constituted a 
violation of the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, for 
failing to provide competent representation to the client; 1.3, for failing to act 
with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client; 1.4(a)(2), for 
failing to consult with her client regarding the means by which the client’s 
objectives would be accomplished; 1.4(a)(3), for failing to keep the client 
informed about the status of the divorce; 1.4(a)(4), for failing to respond as soon 
as practicable to reasonable requests for information from the client; 1.4(c), for 
failing to obtain a signed acknowledgment from the client that he or she had 
received notice of respondent’s lack of professional-liability insurance; and 
1.15(c), for failing to keep unearned legal fees in an IOLTA account. 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that 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.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  Because each disciplinary 
case is unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take 
into account “all relevant factors” in determining what sanction to impose.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
{¶ 14} The primary aggravating factor in this case is that respondent has 
been disciplined twice in the past for professional misconduct.  The first case 
involved a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4), for conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, and misrepresentation, and a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3), for neglecting 
legal matters entrusted to her.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Grote (1987), Disciplinary 
Docket No. 87-5.  Respondent was warned that if she were to be found guilty of 
misconduct in the future, she would be either suspended from the practice of law 
indefinitely or permanently disbarred.  Id. 
{¶ 15} Respondent was disciplined again in 1990 for violating DR 1-
102(A)(4) and 6-101(A)(3) after she failed to pursue a client’s claim, failed to 
communicate with her client, and failed to advise her client that she had allowed 
the applicable statute of limitations to pass.  Cincinnati Bar Assn v. Grote (1990), 
50 Ohio St.3d 156, 553 N.E.2d 657. 
{¶ 16} The harm to the client caused by respondent’s misconduct in this 
case, specifically the fact that the client is not yet divorced and the fact that her 
husband was able to sell off marital property while respondent did nothing, is an 
additional aggravating factor.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h). 
{¶ 17} In mitigation, the board found an absence of a dishonest or selfish 
motive.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b).  Additionally, respondent cooperated fully 
with relator and the board throughout the proceedings.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(d).  Respondent admitted to the misconduct and accepts responsibility 
for her actions. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 18} Although respondent returned the $500 fee to the client, it was not 
returned in a timely fashion and was returned only after respondent was contacted 
by relator.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c).  Therefore, the fact that a refund 
was made has little mitigating value. 
{¶ 19} We have stated in the past that an attorney’s failure to render legal 
services that he or she has been paid to complete is “tantamount to theft.”  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Sigall (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 15, 17, 470 N.E.2d 886.  We 
have indefinitely suspended attorneys for misconduct that demonstrates a pattern 
of neglect.  See Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Harmon (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 69, 477 
N.E.2d 629; Disciplinary Counsel v. Schiller, 123 Ohio St.3d 200, 2009-Ohio-
4909, 915 N.E.2d 324.  In Harmon, we indefinitely suspended an attorney for 
neglecting two legal matters.  The attorney in that case had recently been 
disciplined for neglecting other legal matters.  In Schiller, although the attorney 
had no prior disciplinary record, we indefinitely suspended him for neglecting 
multiple legal matters and failing to advise clients that he did not have 
professional-liability insurance. 
{¶ 20} Even taken alone, respondent’s misconduct in this case is very 
serious, but in considering the two previous disciplinary cases involving 
respondent, we cannot help but conclude that this misconduct is part of a pattern, 
bound to be repeated.  The fact that respondent did not either obtain professional-
liability insurance or obtain acknowledgments of her lack of insurance from her 
clients after the investigation began, when she was explicitly aware that she must 
do so, makes it clear that she is not motivated to stop this pattern of misconduct. 
{¶ 21} For the foregoing reasons, respondent is indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law in Ohio.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
__________________ 
Schuh & Goldberg, L.L.P., and Richard J. Goldberg; and Clements, 
Mahin, & Cohen, L.P.A., Co., and William E. Clements, for relator. 
Jane M. Grote, pro se. 
______________________