Case Title: Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schramski

Citation: 2010-Ohio-630

Docket Number: 20091542

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-03-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schramski, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-630.] 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-630 
ALLEN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SCHRAMSKI. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Allen Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schramski,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-630.] 
Attorney misconduct, including failing to properly maintain a client trust account 
— One-year suspension, with entire suspension stayed on conditions. 
(No. 2009-1542 ⎯ Submitted October 20, 2009 ⎯ Decided March 2, 2010.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 09-015. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Nancy Schramski of Lima, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0038883, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1987. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
recommends that we suspend respondent’s license to practice for one year but 
stay the suspension on conditions to ensure that she properly maintains her client 
trust account.  The recommendation is based on the board’s findings that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
respondent had commingled her funds with her clients’ funds and that she had 
failed to notify clients that she had no malpractice insurance.  We accept the 
findings that respondent violated ethical standards incumbent on Ohio lawyers 
and that a one-year suspension stayed on conditions, including two years of 
probation, is appropriate. 
{¶ 3} Relator, Allen County Bar Association, charged respondent with 
professional misconduct, including failure to comply with requirements for 
safekeeping client funds held in trust, which prior to February 1, 2007, were set 
forth in DR 9-102 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and now appear in 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15.  (See Appendix.)  The parties stipulated that respondent 
violated DR 9-102 and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 and also DR 1-104 and Prof.Cond.R. 
1.4(c), both requiring that lawyers notify clients that they do not maintain 
malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 4} A panel of three board members heard the case and accepted 
respondent’s admission to violations of Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 and 1.4(c).1  The panel 
recommended that respondent be suspended from practice for one year, all stayed 
on the conditions that she (1) commit no further misconduct during the stayed 
suspension, (2) complete six hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) in law-
practice management and proper use of a client trust account, (3) conform her 
office and accounting procedures to professional standards acceptable to relator, 
(4) submit for relator’s review a certified public accountant’s independent audit of 
her client trust account, (5) provide proof to relator that she has filed all 
delinquent tax returns, and (6) complete a two-year probation under the oversight 
                                                 
1.  {¶ a} The panel omitted the Disciplinary Rule violations, explaining: 
     {¶ b} “The panel agrees with the parties’ stipulated misconduct.  The panel also recognizes that 
respondent’s ethical lapses in each count occurred both prior to and after February 1, 2007, when 
the Rules of Professional Conduct were adopted.  We view the violations as continuing and thus 
constituting only one rule violation in each count.” 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
of a monitor appointed by relator.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of 
misconduct and recommendation. 
{¶ 5} The parties do not object to the board’s report. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 6} The board adopted this summary of the parties’ factual stipulations 
as to DR 9-102 and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15: 
{¶ 7} “Respondent filed a lawsuit in the Allen County Common Pleas 
Court alleging that she purchased numerous vehicles, made payments, but had not 
received the vehicles’ titles.  Respondent attached copies of checks to the 
complaint.  The checks were from both her IOLTA [Interest on Lawyers’ Trust 
Accounts] account and her office operating account.  These checks were issued in 
September, October, and November of 2003.  The lawsuit was filed in April, 
2008. 
{¶ 8} “The parties stipulated that the respondent used accumulated 
earned fees still deposited in her IOLTA account and not client funds to purchase 
several vehicles. 
{¶ 9} “Respondent does not maintain appropriate record keeping for her 
IOLTA account.  There are no specific records for each client other than cancelled 
checks and monthly bank statements.” 
{¶ 10} More specifically, respondent acknowledged that she had violated 
DR 9-102 and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 by “(1) failing to promptly withdraw earned fees 
from her IOLTA account (commingling personal funds with those of clients), (2) 
failing to maintain client ledgers and other records showing ongoing client and 
collective IOLTA account balances, (3) failing to maintain complete records and 
perform monthly reconciliation of the IOLTA account, and (4) using her IOLTA 
account to pay non-legal related expenses (including expenses related to a 
restaurant she co-owned and operated).” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 11} The board further found that prior to the disciplinary proceedings, 
respondent had never maintained professional-liability insurance, nor had she ever 
notified her clients of that fact, as required by DR 1-104 and Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c).  
The board noted, however, that as of May 11, 2009, respondent had obtained a 
professional-liability insurance policy affording more coverage than specified in 
the rules.  Respondent acknowledged that prior to May 11, 2009, she had violated 
DR 1-104 and Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c). 
{¶ 12} We accept respondent’s admission to conduct that constitutes 
continuing violations of DR 9-102 and Prof.Cond.R. 1.15. and DR 1-104 and 
Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(c). 
Sanction 
{¶ 13} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and sanctions 
imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 
2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16.  In making a final determination, we also 
weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in the Rules and 
Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board 
of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”) 10(B).  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 
N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.  Because each disciplinary case is unique, we are not limited to 
the factors specified in the rule but may take into account “all relevant factors” in 
determining what sanction to impose.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
{¶ 14} In reviewing sanctions imposed in similar cases, the board cited 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Halliburton-Cohen, 94 Ohio St.3d 217, 2002-Ohio-640, 
761 N.E.2d 1040, and Disciplinary Counsel v. Croushore, 108 Ohio St.3d 156, 
2006-Ohio-412, 841 N.E.2d 781.  In Halliburton-Cohen, we ordered a lawyer’s 
suspension from practice for one year, but stayed the suspension on the conditions 
that the lawyer submit to monitored probation and that she “conform her office 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
and accounting procedures to professional standards acceptable to relator.”  In 
Croushore, we ordered a lawyer’s suspension from practice for one year, but 
stayed the suspension on the condition that he submit to two years of monitored 
probation, including monitoring of his IOLTA account records. 
{¶ 15} Like respondent, the lawyers in both of these cases failed for years 
to properly account for and maintain client funds entrusted to them for 
safekeeping.  But also like respondent, they did so out of ignorance of 
professional bookkeeping responsibilities, not dishonesty.  Unlike the lawyers in 
those cases, however, respondent also failed in her duty to notify clients that she 
lacked malpractice insurance, and evidence adduced at the hearing established a 
further failure to file various tax returns for the past several years.  In mitigation, 
however, neither respondent, nor the lawyers in Halliburton-Cohen and 
Croushore had prior disciplinary records, and all cooperated appropriately during 
the disciplinary proceedings.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d). 
{¶ 16} We find the dispositions in Halliburton-Cohen and Croushore 
instructive.  Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in Ohio 
for one year; however, the suspension is stayed on the conditions that during the 
stay, respondent (1) commits no further misconduct, (2) completes, in addition to 
the requirements of Gov.Bar R. X, six hours of CLE in law-practice management 
and the proper use of a client trust account, (3) conforms her office and 
accounting procedures to professional standards acceptable to relator, (4) submits 
for relator’s review a certified public accountant’s independent audit of her client 
trust account, (5) provides proof to relator that she has filed all delinquent tax 
returns, and (6) completes under the oversight of a monitor appointed by relator a 
two-year probation pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(9).  If respondent fails to comply 
with the conditions of the stay and probation, the stay will be lifted and 
respondent will serve the one-year suspension from practice.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Appendix 
{¶ 17} Prof.Cond.R. 1.15 provides: 
{¶ 18} “(a) A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is 
in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation separate from the 
lawyer’s own property.  Funds shall be kept in a separate interest-bearing account 
in a financial institution authorized to do business in Ohio and maintained in the 
state where the lawyer’s office is situated.  The account shall be designated as a 
‘client trust account,’ ‘IOLTA account,’ or with a clearly identifiable fiduciary 
title.  Other property shall be identified as such and appropriately safeguarded.  
Records of such account funds and other property shall be kept by the lawyer and 
shall be preserved for a period of seven years after termination of the 
representation or the appropriate disbursement of such funds or property, 
whichever comes first.  For other property, the lawyer shall maintain a record that 
identifies the property, the date received, the person on whose behalf the property 
was held, and the date of distribution.  For funds, the lawyer shall do all of the 
following:  
{¶ 19} “(1) maintain a copy of any fee agreement with each client;  
{¶ 20} “(2) maintain a record for each client on whose behalf funds are 
held that sets forth all of the following:  
{¶ 21} “(i) the name of the client;  
{¶ 22} “(ii) the date, amount, and source of all funds received on behalf of 
such client;  
{¶ 23} “(iii) the date, amount, payee, and purpose of each disbursement 
made on behalf of such client;  
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
{¶ 24} “(iv) the current balance for such client. 
{¶ 25} “(3) maintain a record for each bank account that sets forth all of 
the following:  
{¶ 26} “(i) the name of such account;  
{¶ 27} “(ii) the date, amount, and client affected by each credit and debit;  
{¶ 28} “(iii) the balance in the account. 
{¶ 29} “(4) maintain all bank statements, deposit slips, and cancelled 
checks, if provided by the bank, for each bank account;  
{¶ 30} “(5) perform and retain a monthly reconciliation of the items 
contained in divisions (a)(2), (3), and (4) of this rule. 
{¶ 31} “(b) A lawyer may deposit the lawyer’s own funds in a client trust 
account for the sole purpose of paying or obtaining a waiver of bank service 
charges on that account, but only in an amount necessary for that purpose. 
{¶ 32} “(c) A lawyer shall deposit into a client trust account legal fees and 
expenses that have been paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as 
fees are earned or expenses incurred. 
{¶ 33} “(d) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or 
third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third 
person.  For purposes of this rule, the third person’s interest shall be one of which 
the lawyer has actual knowledge and shall be limited to a statutory lien, a final 
judgment addressing disposition of the funds or property, or a written agreement 
by the client or the lawyer on behalf of the client guaranteeing payment from the 
specific funds or property.  Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by 
law or by agreement with the client or a third person, confirmed in writing, a 
lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other 
property that the client or third person is entitled to receive.  Upon request by the 
client or third person, the lawyer shall promptly render a full accounting regarding 
such funds or other property. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 34} “(e) When in the course of representation a lawyer is in possession 
of funds or other property in which two or more persons, one of whom may be the 
lawyer, claim interests, the lawyer shall hold the funds or other property pursuant 
to division (a) of this rule until the dispute is resolved. The lawyer shall promptly 
distribute all portions of the funds or other property as to which the interests are 
not in dispute. 
{¶ 35} “(f) Upon dissolution of any law firm, the former partners, 
managing partners, or supervisory lawyers shall promptly account for all client 
funds and shall make appropriate arrangements for one of them to maintain all 
records generated under division (a) of this rule. 
{¶ 36} “(g) A lawyer, law firm, or estate of a deceased lawyer who sells a 
law practice shall account for and transfer all funds held pursuant to this rule to 
the lawyer or law firm purchasing the law practice at the time client files are 
transferred. 
{¶ 37} “(h) A lawyer, a lawyer in the lawyer’s firm, or a firm that owns an 
interest in a business that provides a law-related service shall:  
{¶ 38} “(1) maintain funds of clients or third persons that cannot earn any 
net income for the clients or third persons in an interest-bearing trust account that 
is established in an eligible depository institution as required by sections 
3953.231, 4705.09, and 4705.10 of the Revised Code or any rules adopted by the 
Ohio Legal Assistance Foundation pursuant to section 120.52 of the Revised 
Code. 
{¶ 39} “(2) notify the Ohio Legal Assistance Foundation, in a manner 
required by rules adopted by the Ohio Legal Assistance Foundation pursuant to 
section 120.52 of the Revised Code, of the existence of an interest-bearing trust 
account;  
{¶ 40} “(3) comply with the reporting requirement contained in Gov. Bar 
R. VI, Section 1(F).” 
January Term, 2010 
9 
 
__________________ 
Baran, Piper, Tarkowsky, Fitzgerald & Theis Co., L.P.A., and Robert B. 
Fitzgerald, for relator. 
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., and Alvin E. Mathews, for respondent. 
______________________