Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Randolph

Citation: 1999-Ohio-268

Docket Number: 19982685

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-04-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Randolph, 85 Ohio St.3d 325, 1999-Ohio-268.] 
 
 
 
 
 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. RANDOLPH. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Randolph (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 325.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Collecting an illegal or 
clearly excessive fee — Failing to pay upon request client funds that client is 
entitled to receive. 
(No. 98-2685 — Submitted February 10, 1999 — Decided April 7, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-103. 
 
On December 8, 1997, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging respondent, Daniel P. Randolph of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0029075, with violating several Disciplinary Rules. After 
respondent submitted an answer and the parties filed stipulations, the matter was 
heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of 
the Supreme Court (“board”). 
 
The panel found that in 1970, Louise Loretta Woehler executed a will 
providing in Item IV that the residue of her estate be held in trust for certain 
purposes, including paying up to $1,500 of the burial expenses of her son, Louis L. 
Ihrig, if he survived Woehler.  Item IV of the will also provided that the residue of 
Woehler’s estate be held in trust for the benefit of her four grandchildren and 
directed that the trustees distribute the trust’s corpus and income to the 
grandchildren when the youngest of them reached the age of thirty.  In 1978, 
Woehler died, and Ihrig survived her.  First National Bank of Cincinnati, n.k.a. 
Star Bank N.A. (“First National”), was appointed executor of the estate and trustee 
of the testamentary trusts. 
 
In late 1984, when the will required final distribution of the testamentary 
trusts to Woehler’s four grandchildren, First National requested that respondent 
 
 
2
prepare an application to establish a burial fund for Ihrig.  Respondent then filed an 
application on behalf of First National, requesting that the probate court authorize 
that $1,500 be withdrawn from the trusts and deposited into a savings and loan 
account in respondent’s name in trust, to be payable with all accrued interest on the 
death of Ihrig for his burial expenses.  In January 1985, the probate court approved 
the application and ordered First National to deliver $1,500 to the savings and loan, 
with the money to be released to Ihrig’s estate or the funeral home selected by his 
next of kin on his death to be used for his burial. First National issued the $1,500 
check payable to the savings and loan with instructions to deposit the money in a 
savings account in respondent’s name as trustee until Ihrig’s death. 
 
When Ihrig died in July 1995, the amount in the savings and loan burial fund 
account, with accrued interest, totaled $2,725.09.  Upon being informed by the 
funeral home about Ihrig’s death, respondent sent the funeral home a check in the 
amount of $1,500.  He kept the remaining $1,225.09 in the burial account as a fee 
for the services rendered even though he  (1) did not do anything other than 
determine whether an annual tax form was required to be filed, (2) did not have 
prior written authorization from the probate court for any fee, and (3) did not enter 
into any written fee agreement with First National, Woehler, or her grandchildren. 
 
In March 1997, one of Woehler’s grandchildren demanded that respondent 
provide an invoice and accounting of his $1,225.09 fee.  Respondent did not offer 
to return the money until December 1997, when he filed his answer to relator’s 
disciplinary complaint. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated DR 2-106(A) 
(collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee) and 9-102(B)(4) (failing to pay upon 
request client funds which client is entitled to receive). 
 
In mitigation, the panel found that respondent initially erroneously believed 
that he was entitled to the fee.  It was not until he read the disciplinary complaint 
 
 
3
and attached exhibits that respondent realized that he had no right to a fee, and he 
returned the remaining account money to the grandchildren.  Respondent accepted 
complete responsibility for his error and testified that he had no previous 
disciplinary violation in a lengthy legal career.  The panel heard witnesses and 
received letters attesting to respondent’s exceptional professional ability and 
exemplary character for honesty and integrity. 
 
The panel recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand.  The 
board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Nancy J. Gill, G. Mitchell Lippert and Richard H. Johnson, for relator. 
 
John H. Burlew and Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  A public reprimand is the appropriate sanction for respondent’s isolated 
act of misconduct.  See Akron Bar Assn. v. Naumoff (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 72, 578 
N.E.2d 452, and Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Gilmartin (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 10, 
577 N.E.2d 350, where we publicly reprimanded and ordered attorneys to make 
full restitution to clients for violating DR 2-106(A).  As the board found, once 
respondent became aware of his error in retaining a fee from the burial fee account, 
he made complete restitution to the beneficiaries of the testamentary trust and 
accepted complete responsibility for his actions.  Respondent is hereby publicly 
reprimanded.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.