Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Ramos

Citation: 2008-Ohio-3235

Docket Number: 20080389

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-07-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Ramos, 119 Ohio St.3d 36, 2008-Ohio-3235.] 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. RAMOS. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Ramos, 119 Ohio St.3d 36, 2008-Ohio-3235.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — 
Commingling — Failure to render account for client funds — Probation 
and six-month stayed suspension. 
(No. 2008-0389 — Submitted March 12, 2008 — Decided July 3, 2008.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 07-080. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Edgar A. Ramos of Rocky River, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0015402, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1977.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we 
suspend respondent’s license to practice for six months, staying the suspension on 
remedial conditions, based on findings that he neglected one client’s case and  
failed to properly maintain and account for fees that client advanced.  Respondent 
admitted the misconduct and agreed with the sanction recommended by the board.  
We agree that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility as 
found by the board and that a six-month suspension, stayed on conditions, is 
appropriate. 
{¶ 2} Relator, Cleveland Bar Association, charged respondent with three 
counts of professional misconduct, later dismissing the second count.  A panel of 
three board members considered the case on the parties’ consent-to-discipline 
agreement, filed pursuant to Section 11 of the Rules and Regulations Governing 
Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on 
Grievances and Discipline (BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  Accepting the agreement, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
panel found the cited misconduct and recommended the six-month suspension, 
the stay, and a monitored probation during the stay.  The board adopted the 
findings and recommended sanction. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 3} Respondent agreed to represent Donald L. Sweet in April 2004 
relative to a real estate dispute.  They reduced their agreement to writing in May 
of that year, with Sweet agreeing to pay $150 per hour, plus expenses, for 
respondent’s services and advancing $2,000.  The agreement required respondent 
to send Sweet monthly invoices detailing legal fees and expenses. 
{¶ 4} In August 2004, respondent filed a complaint on Sweet’s behalf in 
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.  The defendant moved to dismiss, and 
respondent filed a brief in opposition.  In December 2004, the court converted the 
defendant’s motion to one for summary judgment.  In January 2005, the court 
granted respondent’s request for an extension of time to oppose the motion for 
summary judgment, but he then neglected to file his brief.  In May 2005, the trial 
court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment as unopposed. 
{¶ 5} Trying to remedy his neglect, respondent moved the common pleas 
court to reinstate his client’s case and appealed the summary judgment.  The trial 
court denied the motion to reinstate, and the appellate court affirmed the summary 
judgment. 
{¶ 6} Respondent’s failure to respond to a motion for summary judgment 
violated DR 6-101(A)(3) (prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal 
matter). 
Count III 
{¶ 7} Respondent impermissibly deposited Sweet’s $2,000 retainer 
directly into his operating account rather than holding it in his client trust account 
until earned.  He also failed to account to his client as promised with monthly 
January Term, 2008 
3 
invoices.  Respondent thereby violated DR 9-102(A) (requiring a lawyer to 
deposit funds of client in one or more identifiable bank accounts) and 9-102(B)(3) 
(requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records and render appropriate accounts 
of client funds in the lawyer’s possession). 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} In recommending the six-month stayed suspension as the 
appropriate sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the board found mitigating that 
respondent has no previous disciplinary infractions.  He had rectified his failure to 
account to Sweet for his services and fees, ultimately repaying his entire fee, and 
also tried to help Sweet with different options to resolve the real estate dispute.  
Respondent, who cooperated completely in these proceedings, acknowledged his 
misconduct. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (c), and (d).  As an aggravating 
factor, the board implied that Sweet’s advanced age made him a vulnerable client.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h). 
{¶ 9} We accept the board’s recommendation.  Respondent is therefore 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for six months; however, the 
suspension is stayed on the condition that respondent commit no further 
misconduct and complete a six- month monitored probation under Gov.Bar R. 
V(9).  If respondent fails to comply with the conditions of the stay and probation, 
the stay will be lifted, and he will serve the entire six-month suspension. 
{¶ 10} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jones Day, Robert S. Faxon, and Justin M. Cernansky, for relator. 
Edgar A. Ramos, pro se. 
______________________