Case Title: Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Akers

Citation: 2005-Ohio-5144

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-10-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Akers, 106 Ohio St.3d 337, 2005-Ohio-5144.] 
 
 
RICHLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. AKERS. 
[Cite as Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Akers,  
106 Ohio St.3d 337, 2005-Ohio-5144.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer — Conduct 
adversely reflecting an attorney’s fitness to practice law — Suspension 
with partial stay. 
(No. 2005-0382 — Submitted April 13, 2005 — Decided October 12, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-013. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Eric Jonathan Akers of Ashland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0019706, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1973. 
{¶ 2} On November 1, 2004, relator, the Richland County Bar 
Association, filed an amended complaint charging respondent with six counts of 
professional misconduct.  Respondent answered, and a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline held a hearing and made findings of 
fact and conclusions of law, which the board adopted.  The panel also 
recommended a sanction for the misconduct, which the board modified. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 3} Respondent practiced law in Plymouth, Ohio until 1982, when he 
announced the closure of his Plymouth office to devote most of his time to 
teaching in Ashland, Ohio.  He did not, however, close his law office’s post office 
box or arrange for the forwarding of any mail sent to that box.  After respondent 
closed his Plymouth law office, he allowed his former secretary, Janet Jones, to 
continue to use the post office box.  She operated a bookkeeping and tax 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
preparation business under the name “Professional Services” near the site of the 
former law office.  Jones is not a lawyer. 
{¶ 4} In 1987, with respondent’s permission, Jones erected a sign in 
front of her place of business, which read, “Eric Akers, Attorney at Law.”  
Respondent occasionally practiced law at this location.  One and one-half years 
later, after respondent stopped meeting with clients in Plymouth, he asked Jones 
to remove the sign.  She did so, but respondent did not close the post office box or 
take other steps to eliminate potential client confusion concerning the ties 
between “Professional Services” and his former law office. 
Count One 
{¶ 5} On an occasional basis after 1987, except for the years 1990 
through 1995, respondent reviewed and approved legal documents prepared by 
Jones for persons who had never met with or talked to respondent.  Respondent 
would tell Jones how much to bill each client, and then Jones would collect the 
fee from the client, deduct an amount equal to $30 per hour for her services, and 
pay the balance to respondent.  Generally, respondent did not review or even see 
the bill before it was sent to the client and did not see the client’s check or cash 
sent in payment for any legal services rendered.  In some instances, clients were 
billed under the name “Eric Akers, Attorney at Law.” 
{¶ 6} Respondent admitted and the board found that he had thereby 
violated DR 3-102(A) (prohibiting a lawyer from sharing legal fees with a 
nonlawyer). 
Count Two 
{¶ 7} Jones served as the guardian for Vera E. Sourwine in a probate 
matter in Richland County.  Respondent served as Jones’s lawyer in the case. 
{¶ 8} Respondent allowed Jones to sign his name on an application to 
terminate the guardianship in 1997 without advising the probate court that she 
was signing for him.  Also, Jones was required to file monthly reports with the 
January Term, 2005 
3 
probate court concerning the condition of her ward, and she stated on those 
reports each month that she was a “Paralegal to Attorney Eric J. Akers.”  
Respondent was unaware that Jones was representing herself as his paralegal, but 
he did allow her to use his law office’s former post office box, which enabled her 
to intercept correspondence from the probate court that was intended for him. 
{¶ 9} Respondent admitted and the board found that he had thereby 
violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on a 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law). 
Count Three 
{¶ 10} After Vera Sourwine died in 1997, respondent signed and filed an 
application to probate her will on which he listed his address as the post office 
box that he had used until 1982, when he had originally closed his law office in 
Plymouth.  Respondent also signed and filed an application for authority to 
administer the Sourwine estate in 1997, listing the post office box as his address 
and the telephone number for Jones’s office as his telephone number.  Jones 
received approximately $200,000 from the Sourwine estate, and respondent’s 
actions placed her in a position to intercept any communications from the 
Sourwine heirs.  Respondent later allowed Jones to sign his name as attorney for 
the estate on three documents filed with the probate court without disclosing to 
the court that someone had signed the documents for him. 
{¶ 11} Respondent admitted and the board found that he had thereby 
violated DR 1-102(A)(6). 
Count Four 
{¶ 12} Respondent represented the estate of Ida E. Fast in the probate 
court in Huron County in 1987.  The pleadings that he filed in the case correctly 
listed his address as the post office box in Plymouth.  By using that address on the 
pleadings, however, respondent placed Jones, who was not then his employee, in 
a position to intercept any communications from the heirs of the estate.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Respondent also allowed Jones to sign his name as attorney for the estate on 
documents filed with the probate court in Huron County without disclosing to the 
court that someone had signed the documents for him. 
{¶ 13} Respondent admitted and the board found that he had thereby 
violated DR 1-102(A)(6). 
Count Five 
{¶ 14} At the request of Jones, respondent intervened in a probate matter 
involving the estate of H. Joan Ruckman in the probate court in Richland County 
in 1997.  Jones was the executor of the estate. 
{¶ 15} Respondent authorized Jones to sign his name to a pleading filed in 
the case that listed his address as the post office box in Plymouth even though he 
had stopped using that box in connection with his law practice.  Only Jones was 
receiving mail at that address in 1997 and 1998, when respondent performed work 
on the Ruckman matter.  Respondent also allowed Jones to sign his name as 
attorney for the estate on a document filed with the probate court in Richland 
County without disclosing to the court that someone had signed the document for 
him. 
{¶ 16} Respondent admitted and the board found that he had thereby 
violated DR 1-102(A)(6). 
Count Six 
{¶ 17} Mary Leora Kuhn Chandar and her husband, Ram Chandar, owned 
a substantial amount of real estate near Shelby, Ohio.  The Chandars had been 
cared for by Marguerite Wilcox for years under a power-of-attorney document 
that they had executed. 
{¶ 18} In October 1999, respondent authorized Jones to sign his name to a 
letter addressed to Marguerite Wilcox indicating that he represented the Chandars.  
Enclosed with that letter was a notice of revocation of the power of attorney.  The 
January Term, 2005 
5 
letter directed Wilcox to deliver all personal documents and all other personal 
items to Mrs. Chandar immediately. 
{¶ 19} The letter listed an address for respondent that matched Jones’s 
address, and it also listed the post office box in Plymouth that respondent had 
used before he closed his law office in 1982.  The letter began, “This office 
represents Mr. and Mrs. Chandar of Sidney, Ohio.” 
{¶ 20} Respondent met with the Chandars and assisted them in 
terminating all ties with Wilcox.  Respondent knew that Jones would be taking the 
place of Wilcox as personal caretaker of the Chandars when they executed a new 
power of attorney giving Jones that authority. 
{¶ 21} After Mrs. Chandar died, Jones prepared deeds for Mr. Chandar to 
sign, giving all of his real estate to her.  Jones included respondent’s name on the 
deeds as the attorney who had prepared them and also listed the post office box 
address that she had continued to use after respondent closed his law office in 
1982.  Chandar’s land was worth more than $300,000.  Jones also signed 
respondent’s name as her representative on a conveyance form for the gift of 
Chandar’s property to her. 
{¶ 22} Respondent admitted and the board found that he had thereby 
violated DR 1-102(A)(6). 
Sanction 
{¶ 23} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, 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 Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  
The board cited no aggravating factors in connection with respondent’s actions. 
{¶ 24} The board did note several mitigating factors, including the 
absence of any prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish 
motive, a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings, and support for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
respondent’s good character and reputation from attorneys, professors, public 
officials, and others.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e). 
{¶ 25} The panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for 18 months, with the entire suspension stayed.  The board 
modified this recommendation, finding that respondent should be suspended from 
the practice of law for 18 months, with 12 months of the suspension stayed. 
{¶ 26} We agree with the board that respondent committed five violations 
of DR 1-102(A)(6) by engaging in conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness 
to practice law, as well as one violation of 3-102(A) by sharing legal fees with a 
nonlawyer.  We also agree with the sanction recommended by the board.  
Respondent allowed his former secretary to present his address as his own for 
many years after he stopped receiving mail at that address.  He thereby allowed 
her to intercept any incoming mail or telephone calls from courts, clients, and 
other lawyers.  Through his willful ignorance, that former secretary enriched 
herself by more than $300,000, as described in our discussion of count six.  
Respondent also repeatedly allowed the former secretary to sign his name to 
pleadings without indicating to courts or others that he had done so. 
{¶ 27} Respondent’s actions reflect poorly on the legal profession and on 
his fitness to practice that profession.  He allowed his former secretary to take 
actions in his name without effectively overseeing those actions, and he failed to 
give his clients the competence, diligence, and good judgment that they deserved.  
Lawyers cannot practice law in absentia.  They must instead understand that their 
actions affect the public’s perception of the legal system and our system of justice 
as a whole. 
{¶ 28} The penalty recommended by the board is warranted for 
respondent’s misconduct.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio for a period of 18 months, with 12 months of the 
suspension stayed on the condition that respondent commit no further misconduct 
January Term, 2005 
7 
during the 18-month suspension period.  If respondent commits other acts of 
misconduct, the stay will be lifted, and respondent will serve the entire term as an 
actual suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL and 
LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
O’CONNOR, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
O’CONNOR, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 29} I respectfully dissent from the majority’s imposition of an 18-
month suspension with 12 months stayed. 
{¶ 30} Respondent established a pattern of neglect and misconduct that 
facilitated his former secretary’s ability to enrich herself, and together, respondent 
and his former secretary perpetrated fraud upon various courts, the public, and 
clients.  Respondent received fees through the arrangement that he had with his 
former secretary and thereby benefited from the improper conduct.  Respondent 
permitted her to sign his name to court-filed documents without indicating to the 
court that he was not the signatory. 
{¶ 31} Respondent also acquiesced to an arrangement that indicated to the 
public (and clients) that he was a practicing attorney when he was not.  
Respondent facilitated his former secretary’s preparation of legal documents, 
billing clients for the work and allowing clients to think that he, a lawyer, had 
performed the professional service. 
{¶ 32} I would impose an unstayed suspension from the practice of law of 
18 months. 
__________________ 
 
Eric S. Miller, for relator. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A., and Geoffrey Stern, for 
respondent. 
______________________