Case Title: Portage Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sabarese

Citation: 2004-Ohio-2697

Docket Number: 20040036

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-06-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Portage Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sabarese, 102 Ohio St.3d 269, 2004-Ohio-2697.] 
 
 
PORTAGE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SABARESE. 
[Cite as Portage Cty. Bar Assn. v. Sabarese, 102 Ohio St.3d 269, 2004-Ohio-
2697.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with suspension stayed 
on conditions — Neglect of entrusted legal matters — Failing to deposit 
clients’ funds in identifiable bank accounts — Failing to render 
appropriate account of funds to clients. 
(No. 2004-0036 –– Submitted March 15, 2004 –– Decided June 9, 2004.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, Nos. 03-046 and 03-064. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent, Sharon A. Sabarese of Rootstown, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0042479, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1989.  
On May 13 and August 11, 2003, relator, Portage County Bar Association, 
charged respondent, in two complaints, with having violated the Code of 
Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline consolidated the cases and heard both causes and, 
based on the parties’ stipulations and other evidence, made findings of fact and 
conclusions of law and recommended a sanction. 
{¶2} 
As to the first complaint, board case No. 03-046, the panel found 
that Lauren A. Weaver had retained respondent to oversee the administration of 
her father’s estate.  During respondent’s initial meeting with Weaver on July 28, 
2000, respondent told Weaver that once she obtained Weaver’s father’s original 
will, which was in the possession of an out-of-town attorney, she would be able to 
complete the estate administration in approximately three months.  Respondent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
also discussed her fee with Weaver during this meeting, requesting $1,500 for her 
services and $125 for court costs. 
{¶3} 
Weaver paid respondent’s fee, apparently with the understanding 
that it was an initial retainer.  Respondent, however, recalled that she had told 
Weaver that this was a flat fee.  Their fee agreement is not in writing.  Respondent 
deposited the $1,500 into her personal account rather than placing any unearned 
funds into a client trust account. 
{¶4} 
Weaver and her brother were beneficiaries under their father’s will.  
Among other tasks, they needed respondent to file with the county auditor a tax-
release form so that funds from their father’s IRA, which were not subject to 
probate, could be distributed.  The siblings also needed respondent to have their 
father’s vehicle released from probate so that they could sell it.  They planned to 
pay off the loan on the vehicle with part of the IRA proceeds. 
{¶5} 
Respondent prepared various standard probate forms, some of 
which Weaver signed on September 15, 2000.  Respondent also prepared and 
filed the tax-release form that was needed before substantial IRA assets could be 
transferred to Weaver and her brother.  Respondent never filed any of the probate 
documents that she had prepared. 
{¶6} 
Respondent failed, at times, to maintain adequate communication 
with Weaver.  And although she requested Weaver’s father’s will by letter dated 
September 18, 2000, respondent did not obtain the will until October 10, 2000. 
{¶7} 
Weaver discharged respondent on November 10, 2000.  When 
Weaver retained new counsel, respondent delayed several weeks before 
transferring the estate case file to the new attorney.  After her discharge, 
respondent told Weaver that she would provide her with an itemized account of 
her services and refund any unearned funds from the $1,500 fee.  Respondent did 
not provide this accounting until relator’s investigation and has not returned any 
of Weaver’s money. 
January Term, 2004 
3 
{¶8} 
On April 20, 2001, Weaver, her brother, and her father’s estate 
sued respondent, claiming legal malpractice and breach of contract.  Due to 
respondent’s many debts, including extensive medical costs for her child, 
respondent filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.  The bankruptcy reorganization 
plan was confirmed on July 29, 2003, and requires that respondent pay $2,750 to 
Weaver’s father’s estate. 
{¶9} 
As to respondent’s representation of Weaver, the parties stipulated 
and the panel found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) by neglecting 
the estate that had been entrusted to her, DR 9-102(A) by depositing unearned 
fees directly into her personal account rather than holding them in trust, and DR 
9-102(B)(3) by failing to timely render an appropriate accounting of funds. 
{¶10} As to the second complaint, board case No. 03-064, the panel 
found that Vicki J. Knapp had retained respondent to represent her in a dissolution 
or, if necessary, a divorce.  Respondent and Knapp first met on or about 
November 15, 2001, at which time they determined that respondent would 
prepare the paperwork necessary for a dissolution.  Respondent further advised 
Knapp that, assuming that the termination of Knapp’s marriage could be achieved 
through dissolution, a final hearing could be held 30 days after the petition for 
dissolution was filed.  Respondent requested $1,500 in legal fees.  Knapp paid 
$400 at their first appointment and the remaining $1,100 the following month.  
Respondent deposited these fees directly into her personal bank account rather 
than a client trust account. 
{¶11} Thereafter, respondent failed at times to maintain adequate 
communication with Knapp.  From December 2001 until April 2002, for example, 
the parties had minimal contact, and Knapp denied having received 
correspondence that respondent claimed to have sent her during that time.  In 
April 2002, respondent and Knapp met to discuss details to be added to a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
separation agreement and a shared-parenting agreement, which respondent had 
prepared. 
{¶12} Knapp discharged respondent in early July 2002 and retained other 
counsel.  Although respondent did not provide Knapp with an itemized account of 
her services immediately after her discharge, she did provide an accounting to 
relator during its investigation.  Respondent also reimbursed Knapp in full by 
bank check, after her initial personal check was returned for insufficient funds. 
{¶13} The parties stipulated and the panel found that respondent violated 
DR 6-101(A)(3) by neglecting Knapp’s case, DR 9-102(A) by depositing 
unearned fees directly into a personal account, and DR 9-102(B)(3) by failing to 
timely render appropriate accounts to Knapp. 
{¶14} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel 
considered the aggravating and mitigating elements of respondent’s case.  See 
Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  As aggravating factors, the panel found that respondent’s 
neglect of two clients’ cases and commingling of funds constituted multiple 
offenses and a pattern of misconduct and that her delays harmed vulnerable 
clients.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), and (h).  As mitigating, the panel 
found that respondent had no prior disciplinary record and had not acted 
dishonestly or out of self-interest.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (b).  
Respondent had also fully refunded Knapp’s money, conceded her obligation to 
repay $2,750 to the estate of Weaver’s father, cooperated in the disciplinary 
process, and appeared to be of good character and reputation apart from these 
transgressions.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(c), (d), and (e).  The panel further 
found mitigating that respondent, a sole practitioner and single mother, was 
experiencing dire financial problems and other difficulties, during some of the 
January Term, 2004 
5 
events at issue, due in part to her child’s medical bills and her ex-husband’s 
significant child-support arrearages. 
{¶15} The parties jointly proposed a sanction for the misconduct.  
Consistent with that proposal, the panel recommended that respondent be 
suspended from the practice of law for six months, with the entire period of the 
suspension stayed on the following conditions: (1) that respondent be placed on 
probation for one year pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9); and (2) that during the term 
of probation, respondent completes five hours of continuing legal education 
(“CLE”) in law-office management or bookkeeping.  The board adopted the 
panel’s findings of misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶16} Upon review, we agree that respondent violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 
9-102(A), and 9-102(B)(3).  We also agree that the recommended stayed 
suspension and probation is appropriate.  See Columbus Bar Assn. v. Jackson 
(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 463, 678 N.E.2d 920 (attorney’s neglect of clients, 
including duties required for probating an estate, warranted a six-month 
suspension, all stayed, provided that a monitor oversaw attorney’s work for six 
months). 
{¶17} Accordingly, respondent is suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for a period of six months, but this suspension is stayed on the conditions 
that (1) she serve a one-year probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9), and (2) 
during the term of probation she completes five hours of CLE in law-office 
management or bookkeeping.  If respondent fails to comply with these conditions, 
the stay shall be lifted and respondent shall serve the entire six-month suspension.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
__________________ 
 
Kevin T. Poland and David S. Hirt, for relator. 
 
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.P., and Peter T. Cahoon, for 
respondent. 
__________________