Case Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Scott-Chestang

Citation: 2007-Ohio-1956

Docket Number: 20062286

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Scott-Chestang, 113 Ohio St.3d 310, 2007-Ohio-1956.] 
 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SCOTT-CHESTANG . 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Scott-Chestang,  
113 Ohio St.3d 310, 2007-Ohio-1956.] 
Attorney misconduct — Indefinite suspension to run concurrently with sanction 
imposed in previous case. 
(No. 2006-2286 — Submitted February 14, 2007 — Decided May 9, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 06-067. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This court admitted respondent, Renee B. Scott-Chestang, also 
known as Renee B. Fossett, of Shaker Heights, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 
0030616, to the practice of law in Ohio in 1985.  On June 14, 2006, we 
indefinitely suspended respondent’s license to practice for, among other 
misconduct, neglecting the cases of 12 clients.  See Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Scott-Chestang, 109 Ohio St.3d 405, 2006-Ohio-2711, 848 N.E.2d 507. 
{¶ 2} On July 28, 2006, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, 
charged that respondent had violated three more provisions of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility in representing a bankruptcy client.  Relator served 
respondent with the complaint, but she did not answer, and relator moved for 
default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master commissioner appointed by the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline granted the motion, 
making findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommending a sanction, all 
of which the board adopted. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} On review of the board’s report, we find that respondent 
committed three violations of the Disciplinary Rules, and we adopt the 
recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 4} Linda M. Pollard retained respondent in February 2003 to 
represent her in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, paying her $200.  Over the next ten 
months, Pollard paid $950 more pursuant to their fee agreement.  Respondent 
eventually filed the Pollard bankruptcy and some other preliminary papers; 
however, contrary to her client’s repeated requests, respondent failed to do any 
more work in the case.  Pollard eventually had to pay additional legal fees for 
another lawyer to represent her. 
{¶ 5} Respondent did not disclose to Pollard that she had no 
professional-liability insurance.  Respondent also did not maintain a client trust 
account as required and instead deposited Pollard’s fees in the bank account from 
which she paid office expenses. 
{¶ 6} We conclude that respondent violated DR 1-104 (requiring a 
lawyer to disclose to clients the lawyer’s lack of professional-liability insurance), 
6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter), and 
9-102(B)(4) (requiring a lawyer to promptly repay unearned fees).  Although the 
board also found a violation of Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to 
cooperate in the investigation of professional misconduct), we do not adopt that 
finding, inasmuch as relator’s complaint did not charge this misconduct. 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} In determining the appropriate sanction for this misconduct, we 
consider respondent’s background and the mitigating and aggravating factors of 
her case.  See 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.”). 
January Term, 2007 
3 
{¶ 8} Relator cites no mitigating factors; however, the board considered 
the fact that respondent committed the instant misconduct contemporaneously 
with the misconduct for which she is now serving an indefinite suspension.  The 
board found that this single additional ethical lapse, which was similar to the prior 
misconduct, was insufficient justification for increasing the severity of her 
sanction.  Under the circumstances of this case, we agree. 
{¶ 9} As an aggravating factor, the board weighed respondent’s apparent 
failure to comply with our prior order of indefinite suspension, particularly the 
reinstatement conditions that she get treatment for her alcohol dependence and 
mental disability.  The board drew this inference from respondent’s failure to 
participate in any way in these disciplinary proceedings.  We agree with that 
determination. 
{¶ 10} Relator advocated an indefinite suspension to run concurrently 
with the sanction under which she presently serves.  The master commissioner 
and board recommended a concurrent indefinite suspension, and we agree that 
that sanction is appropriate.  We therefore indefinitely suspend respondent from 
the practice of law in Ohio and order respondent to serve the suspension 
concurrently with the sanction imposed in Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Scott-
Chestang, 109 Ohio St.3d 405, 2006-Ohio-2711, 848 N.E.2d 507. 
{¶ 11} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
David M. Paris and Ellen A. Mandell, bar counsel, for relator. 
______________________