Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Reis

Citation: 1997-Ohio-354

Docket Number: 19970812

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-10-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. REIS. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Reis (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 124.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension — Pattern of client 
neglect extending over several years. 
(No. 97-812 — Submitted July 7, 1997 — Decided October 22, 1997.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-82. 
 
On March 29, 1996, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed an amended 
complaint charging respondent, Margaret A. Reis of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0023701, with violations of several Disciplinary Rules with 
respect to her representation of eight clients.  After respondent answered, a panel 
of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme 
Court held a hearing in September 1996.  On February 10, 1997, relator filed a 
second amended complaint charging respondent with the violation of Disciplinary 
Rules with respect to her representation of three other clients.  The panel heard the 
additional matters on March 17, 1997, and respondent filed an answer. 
 
The panel found that in November 1993, respondent received a retainer of 
$900 from Penny J. Geary and agreed to represent her in obtaining additional child 
support and related matters.  Respondent participated in mediation on Geary’s 
behalf from December 1993 through March 1994.  Thereafter, except for one 
telephone conversation with respondent in April 1994, Geary was unable to 
contact respondent.  In August 1994, Geary, by letter, terminated respondent’s 
services and requested the return of her file.  Three months later, in November 
1994, respondent returned the file to Geary.  Geary employed a new attorney and 
received temporary increased child support within a month thereafter. 
 
2
 
In July 1993, Diana E. Ankenbaur employed respondent to represent her in 
a domestic relations action and paid her a $750 retainer.  Respondent entered her 
appearance in the action and represented Ankenbaur from August 1993 until May 
1994.  Ankenbaur said that throughout the representation she was unsuccessful in 
numerous attempts by mail and by leaving phone messages to obtain any 
information from respondent about the status of her case. 
 
In September 1993, Josseline DeLatour paid respondent a $1,200 retainer 
and in November 1994 instructed respondent to file divorce papers.  Respondent 
agreed to prepare the documents by February 1995.  From February through April, 
DeLatour made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact respondent by 
telephone and by regular and registered mail.  On May 16, 1995, DeLatour 
contacted respondent, who agreed to return her file. 
 
In April 1993, Ruth B. Stuckey retained respondent.  After Stuckey’s 
divorce decree was granted in November 1994, she became unemployed and 
needed information regarding her former husband’s 401(k) plan distributions.  
Between February 1995 and July 1995, Stuckey made thirteen unsuccessful 
attempts to contact respondent by telephone and wrote four letters to respondent 
that went unanswered.  In June 1995, Stuckey requested that respondent return her 
file, which respondent failed to do in a timely manner. 
 
Jane M. Bastin, who had two children, Joseph and Steven, gave respondent 
a $100 nonrefundable retainer to represent her at a March 1995 hearing with 
respect to the counseling of her and her ex-husband and the determination of 
visitation rights with their children.  Subsequently, Bastin gave respondent a 
$1,000 nonrefundable retainer to represent her in obtaining custody of the 
children.  Early in May 1995, Bastin and her ex-husband agreed to settle matters 
involving their children.  Despite numerous telephone attempts, Bastin could not 
 
3
contact respondent about the settlement until May 30.  On June 6, 1995, 
respondent and the attorney for Bastin’s ex-husband undertook to draft an agreed 
entry in accordance with the settlement agreement.  Respondent did not complete 
drafting the entry because Bastin had not paid the $580 in additional fees which 
she owed respondent.  As a result, after June 6, 1995, Bastin continued to be held 
responsible for child support payments for her son, Joseph, even though she had 
custody of him.  Bastin finally discharged respondent.  On November 5, 1995, 
Jerome Charls, Bastin’s new counsel, filed a motion to enforce the agreement, 
which had still not been filed.  An order enforcing the agreement was entered on 
December 7, 1995, adjusting support payments that had been overpaid by Bastin 
and underpaid by her ex-husband. 
 
In December 1994, Doris Tribble employed respondent, paying her a $1,200 
nonrefundable retainer, for advice with respect to child support and for the 
purpose of obtaining a divorce.  Respondent filed the divorce complaint in January 
1995.  After a March 1995 hearing was continued because Tribble’s husband 
failed to appear, Tribble was unable to contact respondent.  In October 1995, 
Tribble discharged respondent and eventually obtained a $1,000 default judgment 
against respondent in small claims court. 
 
In March 1995, Karen Addie engaged respondent to represent her in regard 
to a divorce proceeding threatened by her spouse, who was a resident of Bethesda, 
Maryland.  Addie gave respondent a $400 nonrefundable retainer.  On July 6, 
1995, Addie’s husband filed the divorce complaint in Maryland, and Addie was 
given sixty days to respond.  She was also given notice of a hearing in Maryland 
on September 13, 1995.  Addie met with respondent on or about August 9, 1995 
and supplied her with the Maryland papers.  Thereafter Addie called respondent 
several times seeking information about her case, but respondent did not return the 
 
4
calls.  On September 5, 1995, respondent wrote to the Maryland court and asked 
that Addie receive an extension of time to respond until she could retain a lawyer 
qualified to appear in Maryland.  The letter was ineffective in postponing the 
hearing, and on September 19, 1995, Addie was notified that she was in default for 
failure to attend.  Through Addie’s own efforts, the default was later set aside.  
After Addie discharged respondent and sued her in small claims court, respondent 
settled by paying Addie $430. 
 
Larry P. Taylor hired respondent in December 1994 to represent him in a 
divorce action.  As part of the divorce settlement, Taylor quitclaimed his interest 
in a house to his wife, and her attorney forwarded to respondent a note for $38,000 
payable to Taylor, supported by a mortgage on the house.  Respondent did not 
transmit the note and mortgage to Taylor.  In addition, after Taylor gave 
respondent $320 in November 1995 to be forwarded to his former wife’s attorney 
for his daughter’s college fund account, respondent failed to forward the funds.  
Respondent did not answer Taylor’s numerous telephone calls and written 
inquiries about these matters. 
 
In March 1995, Elinore S. Malloy hired respondent to represent her in 
divorce proceedings.  Although respondent performed preliminary services with 
respect to a separation agreement and a shared parenting plan, she never 
completed work on the documents and never filed for the divorce.  Moreover, 
respondent was totally nonresponsive to repeated inquiries by Malloy. 
 
The panel found that the relator had failed to provide clear and convincing 
evidence with respect to two other complaints against respondent. 
 
Based on the foregoing facts, the panel concluded that, with respect to each 
of the above clients, respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an 
entrusted legal matter), and 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3) (failing to seek the lawful 
 
5
objectives of a client), (failing to carry out a contract of employment), (prejudicing 
or damaging a client during the course of a professional relationship).  
Additionally, the panel concluded that with respect to Penny Geary and Doris 
Tribble, respondent had violated DR 9-102(B)(4) (promptly delivering to a client 
when requested money or property which the client is entitled to receive); with 
respect to Geary, Tribble, and Ruth Stuckey, respondent had also violated DR 2-
110(A)(2) (failing to deliver to the client all papers and property to which the 
client is entitled); with respect to Jane Baslin and Karen Addie, respondent had 
also violated DR 9-102(A) (failure to deposit client funds in an identifiable bank 
account where no funds of the lawyer are deposited); with respect to Addie, 
respondent had also violated DR 6-101(A)(1) (handling a legal matter which she is 
not competent to handle), and with respect to Larry Taylor, respondent had also 
violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation). 
 
After the panel heard from respondent’s character witnesses, it 
recommended that she be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio, 
with conditions for any reinstatement.  The board adopted the findings and 
conclusions of the panel and recommended an indefinite suspension, and that, as a 
condition for any reinstatement, she be required to refund the following amounts 
to the following former clients:  to Doris Tribble, $1,000; to Diana Ankenbaur, 
$500; to Ruth Stuckey, $500; to Josseline DeLatour, $500; and to Elinore Mallory, 
an itemized statement and return of any unused retainer fee.  The board also 
recommended that as a second condition for reinstatement, respondent should take 
at least two continuing legal education courses on trust account management.  As a 
third condition for reinstatement, the board recommended that within six months 
prior to her application for readmission, respondent undergo psychological 
 
6
evaluation and receive a satisfactory recommendation as to her ability to function 
as an attorney and that if she is readmitted, the relator monitor her practice for one 
year after reinstatement. 
__________________ 
 
Robert J. Gehring, Ann L. Lugbill and Stephen M. Nechemias, for relator. 
 
John H. Burlew, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Neglect of client matters reflects poorly not only on the lawyer 
involved, but also on the entire legal profession.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Sigall 
(1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 15, 14 OBR 320, 470 N.E.2d 886.  As we have previously 
said, “Neglect * * * warrants disciplinary action contingent upon the severity and 
pervasiveness of the conduct.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Ball (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 
401, 403, 618 N.E.2d 159, 161.  In this case we observe a clear pattern of client 
neglect extending over several years with no mitigating circumstances. 
 
Respondent’s repeated failure to fulfill her responsibilities as a lawyer 
warrants a sanction of indefinite suspension. 
 
Further, respondent’s reinstatement to the practice of law will be subject to 
four conditions in addition to the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(B) et seq.  
First, before her reinstatement will be considered, respondent shall provide 
evidence that she has refunded the following amounts to the following former 
clients: to Doris Tribble, $1,000; to Diana Ankenbaur, $500; to Ruth Stuckey, 
$500; to Josseline DeLatour, $500; and to Elinore Susan Mallory, an itemized 
statement and return of any unused retainer fee.  Second, before reinstatement is 
considered, respondent must provide evidence that she has attended at least two 
continuing legal education courses on trust account management.  Third, before 
her reinstatement is considered, respondent shall demonstrate that within six 
 
7
months prior to her petition for reinstatement she was psychologically evaluated 
and received a satisfactory recommendation as to her ability to function as an 
attorney.  Finally, if respondent is reinstated, the relator shall monitor her practice 
for one year after reinstatement.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.