Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder

Citation: 1999-Ohio-34

Docket Number: 19991165

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-11-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder, 87 Ohio St.3d 211, 1999-Ohio-34.] 
 
 
 
 
 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. SNYDER. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Snyder (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 211.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Neglecting an 
entrusted legal matter — Failing to promptly notify client of receipt of 
funds — Failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation — Failing to 
promptly pay or deliver funds to a client upon request — Current charges 
occurred at the same time as those involved in previous disciplinary case 
which resulted in an indefinite suspension. 
(No. 99-1165 — Submitted August 25, 1999 — Decided November 10, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-21. 
 
On February 18, 1997, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging respondent, Scott W. Snyder of Canal Fulton, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0030089, with violating several Disciplinary Rules.  After being 
served, respondent failed to file an answer, and the matter was submitted to a panel 
of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme 
Court (“board”) on relator’s motion for a default judgment and attached exhibits. 
 
The panel found that Bonnie Shalhoub retained respondent in connection 
with a debt collection matter.  Respondent settled the dispute, and the debtor 
agreed to make payments to Shalhoub through respondent.  Respondent deducted 
his one-third contingent fee and forwarded four payments in 1992 and three 
payments in 1993 to Shalhoub.  Respondent then stopped transmitting further 
payments, although he owed Shalhoub $3,064.  Despite numerous attempts to 
contact respondent, Shalhoub did not hear from him after she received a check 
from him in October 1993.  In 1996, Shalhoub filed a grievance with relator, and 
respondent failed to respond to telephone calls and letters during relator’s 
 
 
2
investigation of the grievance.  According to the panel, the Clients’ Security Fund 
awarded Shalhoub $1,352.46 based on respondent’s misconduct. 
 
The panel further found that Mary Conner paid respondent a $1,500 retainer 
to probate her mother’s estate.  Respondent never filed an inventory and never paid 
estate taxes despite Conner’s delivery of a check to him to pay those taxes.  The 
probate court removed respondent as counsel for the estate, and Conner retained 
another attorney to complete the administration of the estate.  After Conner filed a 
grievance with relator, respondent failed to respond to relator’s telephone calls and 
letters during its investigation of the grievance.  Conner requested reimbursement 
of $1,895.68 from the Clients’ Security Fund. 
 
In mitigation, the panel found that from 1994 to 1996, respondent had been 
treated by a psychiatrist after his father’s death in March 1993.  The panel noted 
that we had previously indefinitely suspended respondent from the practice of law 
in Ohio for conduct occurring at the same time as the charges here.  Akron Bar 
Assn. v. Snyder (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 57, 676 N.E.2d 504. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct in the Shalhoub matter 
violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 9-102(B)(1) 
(failing to promptly notify client of receipt of her funds), and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) 
(failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation).  For the Conner matter, the 
panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 6-101(A)(3), 9-102(B)(4) 
(failing to promptly pay or deliver funds to a client upon request), and Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G).  The panel recommended that because these charges occurred at the same 
time as those involved in respondent’s previous disciplinary case, respondent 
should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  The panel also 
recommended that respondent should make restitution to his clients and the 
Clients’ Security Fund.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
 
 
3
__________________ 
 
Amer Cunnigham Brennan Co., L.P.A., and John C. Weisensell; Michael C. 
Scanlon; Stark & Knoll Co., L.P.A., and Michael L. Stark, for relator. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Neglect of legal matters and a failure to cooperate in the ensuing 
disciplinary investigation generally warrant an indefinite suspension from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rollins (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 408, 
410, 704 N.E.2d 1210, 1211.  The board properly noted that the misconduct 
charged in the complaint occurred in the same period of time as the charges 
involved in respondent’s previous disciplinary case, which resulted in an indefinite 
suspension, and that these new charges did not require a significantly different 
sanction.  See, e.g., Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Jaynes (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 245, 
246, 611 N.E.2d 807, 808.  Respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio and is ordered to make full restitution to his clients, 
Shalhoub and Conner, and to the Clients’ Security Fund.  Costs taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
COOK, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  In view of the aggravating factor of respondent’s 
prior discipline, I would disbar.