Case Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Maybaum

Citation: 2003-Ohio-2062

Docket Number: 20030357

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Maybaum, 98 Ohio St.3d 507, 2003-Ohio-2062.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. MAYBAUM. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Maybaum, 98 Ohio St.3d 507, 2003-Ohio-
2062.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with sanction stayed on 
condition that no further formal complaints are filed against attorney — 
Commingling attorney and client funds — Engaging in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice — Failing to complete 
recommended mediation proceedings. 
(No. 2003-0357 — Submitted March 12, 2003 — Decided May 7, 2003.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 02-50. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Scott D. Maybaum of Independence, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0030587, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1978.  
On August 12, 2002, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging respondent with various violations of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  
See Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints 
and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court. 
{¶2} 
According to the facts set forth in the consent-to-discipline 
agreement, a client retained respondent in March 2000 to represent her in a 
domestic relations dispute.  The client agreed to pay respondent $175 per hour 
and paid him $3,000 as a retainer.  Respondent deposited this fee in his general 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
operating account, even though he had not yet earned any part of it.  Over the next 
six months, respondent sent several invoices to the client indicating the amount of 
the retainer that he had earned.  The client periodically sent money to respondent 
to supplement the diminishing retainer.  Respondent deposited each of his client’s 
payments into his operating account rather than into a trust account. 
{¶3} 
The client later reconciled with her husband and lodged a fee-
dispute complaint with relator.  Respondent and the client mediated the dispute, 
ultimately agreeing on a monetary settlement and on a date on which respondent 
would remit the settlement.  Respondent did not pay on the agreed date but has 
since complied with the mediation agreement in full. 
{¶4} 
The parties stipulated that respondent violated DR 9-102(A)(2) 
(commingling funds belonging to the attorney with those belonging to a client), 1-
102(A)(1) (violation of a Disciplinary Rule) and 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) 
(failure to complete recommended mediation proceedings).  In recommending a 
sanction, the panel considered that respondent had no previous disciplinary record 
and had cooperated completely with relator’s investigation.  The panel also found 
that respondent had genuinely misunderstood the requirement for depositing 
unearned fees into a trust account and that his mistake had not harmed his client.  
Moreover, the panel found that respondent’s personal financial distress, caused 
primarily by his wife’s serious injuries from an auto accident, had prevented him 
from paying the mediated settlement amount. 
{¶5} 
The panel recommended the sanction suggested by the parties—a 
six-month suspension from the practice of law, with the entire six months stayed 
on the condition that no other formal complaints of misconduct are filed against 
January Term, 2003 
3 
respondent.1  The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct, with the 
exception of the DR 1-102(A)(1) violation as an independent ground of 
misconduct, and its recommended sanction. 
{¶6} 
We agree that respondent violated DR 9-102(A)(2) and 1-
102(A)(5) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) and that the board’s recommendation is 
appropriate.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of 
law in Ohio for six months, but this suspension is stayed on the condition that no 
other formal complaints of misconduct are filed against respondent.  Costs are 
taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK, LUNDBERG 
STRATTON and O’CONNOR, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
McDonald, Hopkins, Burke & Haber Co., L.P.A., and Steven L. Gardner; 
and Jon F. Deegan, for relator. 
 
Scott D. Maybaum, pro se. 
__________________ 
                                                 
1. 
Although the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement stayed the six-month suspension 
on the condition that no further grievances were brought against respondent, they have since 
clarified that they intended the stay to be conditioned on the filing of a formal complaint.