Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Bortz

Citation: 1996-Ohio-270

Docket Number: 19951669

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
Cincinnati Bar Association v. Bortz. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Bortz (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d _____.] 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Accepting employment, 
without client’s consent after full disclosure, when attorney’s judgment on 
client’s behalf may reasonably be affected by attorney’s own interests. 
 
(No. 95-1669 -- Submitted September 27, 1995 -- Decided January 10, 
1996.) 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-12. 
 
In a complaint filed on February 6, 1995, relator, Cincinnati Bar 
Association, charged that respondent, Lee J. Bortz of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0001193, had violated, inter alia, DR 5-101(A) (accepting 
employment, without client’s consent after full disclosure, where attorney’s 
judgment on client’s behalf may reasonably be affected by attorney’s own 
interests).  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
of the Supreme Court (“board”) heard the matter on June 8, 1995. 
 
The parties stipulated to respondent’s having violated DR 5-101(A) and to 
the following facts about the misconduct: 
 
2
 
“1. * * * Respondent, as the attorney for Rena F. Myers, prepared her Last 
Will and Testament dated June 26, 1991 * * *; 
 
“2.  * * * [S]uch Last Will and Testament as prepared by Respondent, 
provided, inter alia, that Respondent was a beneficiary of a portion of Ms. Myers’  
residual estate and a contingent beneficiary of a portion of Ms. Myers’ residual 
estate; 
 
“3.  * * * [E]xceptional circumstances justifying the preparation of the Last 
Will and Testament in which he was a beneficiary of a portion of her residual 
estate did not exist, * * * Respondent is not a relative of Ms. Myers and 
Respondent did not insist that the Last Will and Testament of Rena F. Myers be 
prepared by another attorney; 
 
“* * *  
 
“5.  * * * [O]n October 28, 1994, Respondent irrevocably disclaimed any 
interest to which he may be entitled as a residual beneficiary, or contingent 
residual beneficiary, under the Last Will and Testament dated June 26, 1991 which 
he prepared for Rena F. Myers, which disclaimer was made after Respondent was 
notified of Relator’s investigation into his conduct but which disclaimer was filed 
 
3
prior to the certification of the within Complaint by the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline; 
 
“6.  That no prior formal complaints alleging misconduct have been filed 
against Respondent with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline.” 
 
Other evidence presented at the hearing established that respondent had 
represented Myers since 1965 and that his involvement in her affairs gradually 
increased over the years as her health declined.  No evidence suggested that 
respondent, who is seventy years old and has had his own health problems, had 
any opportunity to influence Myers due to her possible mental instability.  
Moreover, at the time respondent prepared Myers’s will, he had concluded that no 
funds would be left for the residual estate beneficiaries after payment of her 
bequests and the estate expenses.  Respondent apparently miscalculated, however, 
because at the time of Myers’s death in June 1994, he estimated that he might have 
received as much as seventy thousand dollars under the June 1991 will he 
prepared. 
 
The panel found that respondent had violated DR 5-101(A), as stipulated.  
In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the panel considered 
 
4
respondent’s advanced age, his prior unblemished record as an attorney, his 
service in government employment, his subsequent long career as a solo 
practitioner, and his sincere remorse.  The panel recommended that respondent be 
publicly reprimanded for his misconduct, as suggested by the parties. 
 
The board adopted the panel’s report, including its findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation. 
 
Richard J. Ruebel, Hollis A. Moore III and Edwin W. Patterson III, for 
relator. 
 
Helmer, Lugbill, Martins & Neff Co., L.P.A., and James B. Helmer, Jr., for 
respondent. 
 
Per Curiam.  Upon review of the record, we concur in the board’s finding of 
misconduct and its recommendation.  Respondent is therefore publicly 
reprimanded for his violation of DR 5-101(A).  Costs taxed to respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., 
concur. 
 
WRIGHT, J., dissents. 
 
5
 
WRIGHT, J., dissenting.  Regrettably, I must respectfully dissent.  I recognize 
the mitigating factors in this case; nevertheless, I believe this court should be 
consistent in its treatment of this type of case.  Accordingly, I would suspend 
Bortz for one year and stay six months of the suspension.