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

Citation: 2009-Ohio-259

Docket Number: 20081272

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-01-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cook, 121 Ohio St.3d 9, 2009-Ohio-259.] 
 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. COOK. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Cook, 
 121 Ohio St.3d 9, 2009-Ohio-259.] 
Attorney misconduct — Six-month suspension, stayed on conditions — Charging 
excessive fee — Nonrefundable retainer — Failure to maintain records of 
client funds. 
(No. 2008-1272 – Submitted August 26, 2008 – Decided January 29, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-054. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Gary Cook of Euclid, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
0021240, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1976.  The Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we suspend 
respondent’s license to practice for six months, staying the suspension on 
remedial conditions, based on findings that he charged a clearly excessive fee, 
failed to deposit unearned fees in a client trust account, and failed to maintain 
records of client funds in his possession.  We agree that respondent violated 
Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility as found by the 
board and that a six-month suspension, stayed on conditions of restitution, 
continuing legal education, and no further misconduct, is appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, charged respondent 
with three counts of professional misconduct involving a single client.  A panel of 
the board heard the case, found respondent in violation of Disciplinary Rules as 
charged in the third count only, and recommended the six-month, conditionally 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
stayed suspension.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and 
recommendation. 
{¶ 3} The parties have not objected to the board’s report. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} As to Count III, the board found that respondent had charged a 
nonrefundable retainer in violation of DR 2-106(A) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
charging a clearly excessive or illegal fee) and had failed to deposit unearned fees 
in his client trust account in violation of DR 9-102(A) (requiring a lawyer to 
maintain client funds in a separate, identifiable account).  The board further found 
respondent in violation of DR 9-102(B)(3) for his failure to maintain complete 
records of client funds and to render appropriate accounts. 
{¶ 5} Respondent committed this misconduct in representing Pauletta 
Buchanan.  Buchanan retained respondent in August 2004 when she was facing a 
foreclosure action then pending in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.  In 
their fee agreement, respondent promised to represent Buchanan on various legal 
matters involving her mortgage company and others.  The terms of the agreement 
were that Buchanan would pay respondent a “flat rate retainer” of $4,500 and that 
respondent would receive 20 percent of any recovery from a counterclaim 
alleging predatory lending. 
{¶ 6} The parties stipulated that Buchanan paid respondent $2,800 
toward the $4,500 flat fee, but the invoices, receipts, and other documents 
presented to substantiate this payment contradicted the stipulations and were 
inconsistent with each other.  The parties also stipulated that respondent did not 
deposit the funds he received from Buchanan in a client trust account.  
Respondent suggested that he was entitled to the $4,500, his standard fee in 
foreclosure cases, because the funds were earned upon receipt.  He also estimated 
having devoted 12 to 15 hours to Buchanan’s foreclosure case but conceded that 
he had not kept careful track of his time. 
January Term, 2009 
3 
{¶ 7} “A nonrefundable retainer requires that the client pay for legal 
services in advance, and permits an attorney to retain the advance payment, 
irrespective of whether the services contemplated are rendered.”  23 Williston on 
Contracts, (4th Ed.2008) Section 62:2.  In finding violations of DR 2-106(A), we 
have generally disapproved of nonrefundable, earned-upon-receipt legal fees 
absent a true “general” retainer agreement, one that secures the services of a 
particular attorney for any contingency and requires the lawyer to forgo 
employment by a competitor of the client.  Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Okocha 
(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 3, 6, 697 N.E.2d 594 (nonrefundable retainer plus 40 
percent contingent fee in a wrongful-discharge case found to be clearly 
excessive).  We have cautioned against charging nonrefundable fees because DR 
2-110(A)(3) and successor Rule 1.16(e) of the Rules of Professional Conduct 
require in all but narrow circumstances that upon withdrawal from representation, 
a lawyer must return fees that the client has paid in advance and that the lawyer 
has not earned.  See Columbus Bar Assn. v. Halliburton-Cohen, 106 Ohio St.3d 
98, 2005-Ohio-3956, 832 N.E.2d 42 (nonrefundable retainer found to violate DR 
2-106(A) as clearly excessive fee); Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Watterson, 103 Ohio 
St.3d 322, 2004-Ohio-4776, 815 N.E.2d 386 (nonrefundable retainer of $2,000 on 
top of contingent fee found to violate DR 2-106(A)); Dayton Bar Assn. v. Schram, 
98 Ohio St.3d 512, 2003-Ohio-2063, 787 N.E.2d 1184 ($3,300 nonrefundable 
retainer found to violate DR 2-106(A)). 
{¶ 8} Respondent does not now contest the finding that he violated DR 
2-106(A) by charging a flat earned-upon-receipt retainer plus a 20 percent 
contingent fee.  He also does not dispute that he violated DR 9-102(A) by failing 
to deposit unearned funds in a client trust account.  Similarly, respondent does not 
contest the finding that he violated DR 9-102(B)(3) by failing to maintain records 
and account for client funds in his possession.  We find that he committed this 
misconduct. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} The board considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed 
in Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints 
and Hearings Before the Board of Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD 
Proc.Reg.”). 
{¶ 10} 
Respondent’s prior disciplinary record weighed against him.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a).  Respondent was convicted of a felony for 
assisting his client in transactions funded by the client’s illicit drug sales.  
Respondent admitted that he had acted with “reckless disregard” for the truth as to 
the source of the funds.  We suspended him from practice in February 1999 on an 
interim basis because of his conviction, see Gov.Bar R. V(5)(A)(4), and then 
completed the disciplinary process in May 2000 by imposing a six-month 
suspension with credit for the year his license had already been under suspension.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Cook (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 80, 728 N.E.2d 1054.  
Mitigating factors include that, on balance, respondent cooperated in this 
disciplinary action.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d). 
{¶ 11} Relator proposed a one-year suspension from practice with a six-
month stay on conditions that respondent (1) pay $2,800 in restitution to 
Buchanan, (2) complete six hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) in law-
office management, and (3) commit no further disciplinary violations during the 
one-year period.  Respondent proposed dismissal of the complaint or, in the 
alternative, a six-month suspension, all stayed on the condition that he repay 
Buchanan $1,000 in restitution.  Crafting their recommendation with elements of 
both proposals, the panel and board recommended a six-month suspension, stayed 
on condition that within the six-month period, respondent pay $1,000 in 
restitution, complete the six hours of CLE, and commit no further misconduct. 
{¶ 12} The recommended six-month suspension, stayed on remedial 
conditions is commensurate with Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Witt, 103 Ohio St.3d 
January Term, 2009 
5 
434, 2004-Ohio-5463, 816 N.E.2d 1036 (stayed six-month suspension ordered for 
an attorney who told his clients that his fees were earned upon receipt and often 
made cash withdrawals from his client trust account without appropriate 
recordkeeping).  Respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six 
months; however, the suspension is stayed on the conditions that he reimburse 
Buchanan $1,000 with interest at the judgment rate within the six-month 
suspension period, take six hours of CLE in law-office management in addition to 
the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, and commit no further misconduct.  If 
respondent violates the terms of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and respondent 
will serve the entire six-month suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Ellen S. Mandell, Bar Counsel, and Blaise Giusto, for relator. 
James Alexander Jr., for respondent. 
______________________