Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Harsey

Citation: 2015-Ohio-965

Docket Number: 2014-0961

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-03-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Akron Bar Assn. v. Harsey, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-965.] 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-965 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. HARSEY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Akron Bar Assn. v. Harsey, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-965.] 
Attorneys at Laws—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a 
matter and failing to communicate the basis of a fee—Public reprimand. 
(No. 2014-0961—Submitted June 25, 2014—Decided March 17, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-066. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Eric Jon Harsey of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0081781, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2007.  
On December 13, 2013, relator, Akron Bar Association, charged Harsey with two 
counts of professional misconduct in two client matters.  The first count alleged 
that Harsey neglected a client’s criminal appeal and failed to reasonably 
communicate with the client.  The second alleged not only that he failed to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
adequately explain his fee to another client but also that he failed to deposit 
unearned fees into his client trust account. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline1 considered the cause on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement.  
See BCGD Proc.Reg. 11.2  In that agreement, Harsey stipulates that after an 
unsuccessful attempt to suppress dash-cam video of his client’s arrest for driving 
under the influence, his client entered a no-contest plea and sought to appeal the 
suppression ruling.  Harsey agreed to handle the appeal for $750 and received 
$200 from the client on the day that he filed the appeal.  Although he claimed that 
he sent the client a letter requesting full payment of the quoted retainer, the client 
denied having received the letter. 
{¶ 3} Harsey spoke to the client approximately one week after he filed 
the notice of appeal, but they had no further communication.  Harsey failed to file 
a brief, and the client’s appeal was dismissed.  The client then retained other 
counsel to reopen the appeal, but his arguments on appeal were limited because 
Harsey had failed to ensure that the dash-cam videotape had been transmitted to 
the court of appeals. 
{¶ 4} The parties stipulate that Harsey’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 
1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client), 
1.4(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer to reasonably consult with the client about the means 
by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a 
lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), and 
1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as soon as practicable with reasonable 
requests for information from the client). 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
2 Effective January 1, 2015, Gov.Bar R. V(16), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXX, governs consent-to-
discipline agreements. 
January Term, 2015 
3 
 
{¶ 5} With respect to a second client, the parties stipulate that their 
written fee agreement, for $750, covered Harsey’s representation in two civil 
lawsuits.  It is not clear whether that fee included filing fees.  Harsey claimed that 
he had only received $500 of the fee—$100 of which was to be allocated to the 
filing fee for one case—but the client produced two canceled checks that totaled 
$800 and allocated $200 to filing fees.  The parties stipulate that Harsey placed 
the client’s money directly into his operating account, not his client trust account, 
and that he could not properly account for the funds. 
{¶ 6} Harsey admits that his conduct in this second client matter violated 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(b) (requiring an attorney to communicate the nature and scope 
of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses within a 
reasonable time after commencing the representation unless the lawyer regularly 
represented the client and charges the client on the same basis as previously 
charged) and 1.15(c) (requiring a lawyer to deposit advanced legal fees and 
expenses into a client trust account to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are 
earned or expenses incurred). 
{¶ 7} The only aggravating factor identified by the parties is that Harsey 
committed multiple offenses.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(d).3  Mitigating 
factors, however, include the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of 
a dishonest or selfish motive, Harsey’s full and free disclosure to the board and 
his cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, and evidence of 
other interim rehabilitation including his voluntary efforts to obtain mentoring in 
law-office management and to formalize his accounting practices and his 
purchase of accounting software.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and 
(h). 
                                                 
3 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1) and (2) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 8} Based upon the stipulated misconduct and the aggravating and 
mitigating factors present, the parties stipulate that a public reprimand is the 
appropriate sanction here.  In support of the recommended sanction, the parties 
cite four cases, three of which the board found instructive:  Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Dundon, 129 Ohio St.3d 571, 2011-Ohio-4199, 954 N.E.2d 1186 (publicly 
reprimanding an attorney who failed to regularly communicate with his client, 
neglected the legal matter entrusted to him, and failed to timely respond to the 
client’s request for a refund); Toledo Bar Assn. v. Hetzer, 137 Ohio St.3d 572, 
2013-Ohio-5480, 2 N.E.3d 247 (publicly reprimanding an attorney who neglected 
a client matter, failed to deposit unearned fees into his client trust account, failed 
to maintain adequate records of client funds in his possession, and failed to hold 
disputed funds in trust); and Trumbull Co. Bar Assn. v. Rucker, 134 Ohio St.3d 
282, 2012-Ohio-5642, 981 N.E.2d 866 (publicly reprimanding an attorney who 
neglected a client matter, failed to reasonably communicate with the client, failed 
to deposit the client’s funds into an interest-bearing client trust account, and 
charged a fee denominated as “nonrefundable” without also advising the client in 
writing that the client may be entitled to a refund of the fee). 
{¶ 9} The panel and board found that the consent-to-discipline 
agreement conforms to BCGD Proc.Reg. 11 and recommend that we adopt the 
agreement in its entirety. 
{¶ 10} We agree that Harsey violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 
1.4(a)(3), 1.4(a)(4), 1.5(b), and 1.15(c), as stated in the parties’ agreement, and 
that this conduct warrants a public reprimand.  We therefore adopt the parties’ 
consent-to-discipline agreement.  No evidence was presented to support the 
charges of violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 or 1.5(d)(3), and therefore we dismiss those 
charges. 
{¶ 11} Accordingly, Eric Jon Harsey is hereby publicly reprimanded.  
Costs are taxed to Harsey. 
January Term, 2015 
5 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Thomas R. Houlihan, Patricia A. Vance, and Thomas P. Kot, Bar Counsel, 
for relator. 
Elizabeth Nocera Davis, for respondent. 
______________________