Case Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wagner

Citation: 2007-Ohio-1253

Docket Number: 20061899

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wagner, 113 Ohio St.3d 158, 2007-Ohio-1253.] 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. WAGNER. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wagner,  
113 Ohio St.3d 158, 2007-Ohio-1253.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2006-1899 – Submitted November 29, 2006 — Decided April 4, 2007.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 05-077. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In this case, we are called upon to determine the appropriate 
sanction for an attorney who failed to promptly refund unearned retainers and 
further failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation. 
{¶ 2} The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
adopted the sanction recommended by the master commissioner and 
recommended that the Supreme Court impose an indefinite suspension upon 
Charles E. Wagner, Attorney Registration No. 0046937, for these violations.  
After a careful review of the facts in this case, we agree with the board’s 
recommendation and hereby issue an order indefinitely suspending Wagner from 
the practice of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 3} The Cuyahoga County Bar Association filed a complaint alleging 
misconduct arising from Wagner’s representation of two different clients.  The 
first concerned Greco Thornton and his wife, who paid Wagner a $500 retainer to 
file a foreclosure action on their behalf on December 6, 2004.  At that time, 
Wagner promised to send a demand letter in an effort to collect payments owed 
the Thorntons on a second mortgage and, further, to contact them on or before 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
December 17, 2004.  Wagner, however, never communicated with the Thorntons 
again. 
{¶ 4} On January 18, 2005, the Thorntons sent a letter to Wagner 
discharging him and demanding a refund of their $500.  When the post office 
returned their letter marked “unclaimed” on March 5, 2005, the Thorntons filed a 
grievance with the Cuyahoga County Bar Association. 
{¶ 5} Upon receiving notice of the grievance, Wagner forwarded a $500 
check to the Bar Association, drawn from his client trust account and made out to 
Taymine Real Estate Investment, as a refund for the Thorntons.  In a letter that 
accompanied the check, Wagner claimed that he had written two demand letters 
to the debtor in the foreclosure action before being discharged as counsel, but he 
did not offer any evidence substantiating this claim.  The Cuyahoga County Bar 
Association returned the check and advised Wagner that it would not accept 
money on behalf of the Thorntons.  Nothing in the record suggests that Wagner 
thereafter attempted to repay the Thorntons.  Further, Wagner failed to respond to 
requests for information during the Cuyahoga County Bar Association’s 
investigation. 
{¶ 6} The other matter concerned Gloria Farmer, who retained Wagner 
in October 2004 to file a divorce action on her behalf.  Farmer signed a document 
entitled “Letter of Representation and Promissory Note for Payment Plan,” and 
she paid Wagner $500 of a quoted $1,500 legal fee.  However, just three days 
after signing the agreement and tendering the initial payment to Wagner, Farmer 
advised Wagner that she had reconsidered her decision to seek a divorce, and 
Wagner promised to return the retainer, but never did. 
{¶ 7} The Cuyahoga County Bar Association sent two letters of inquiry 
to Wagner during its investigation of Farmer’s grievance.  It also left a voicemail 
message at his office.  Wagner, however, did not reply to any of these attempted 
communications. 
January Term, 2007 
3 
 
{¶ 8} The Cuyahoga County Bar Association attempted to serve Wagner 
with the amended complaint regarding the Thorntons and Farmer at the business 
and residence addresses on file for him with the Attorney Registration Section of 
the Supreme Court; however, both were returned unclaimed, and service was 
perfected through the Clerk of the Supreme Court pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
V(11)(B).  Wagner did not answer the complaint, and the bar association moved 
for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F) on July 3, 2006.  It amended the 
motion several days later. 
{¶ 9} A master commissioner appointed by the Board of Commissioners 
on Grievances and Discipline found that respondent had violated DR 9-102(B)(4) 
(requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver requested funds that a client is entitled to 
receive) and Gov.Bar R. V(4)(G) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate in a 
disciplinary investigation). The master commissioner found that Wagner acted 
dishonestly and selfishly in failing to refund his clients’ money, that he had 
engaged in a pattern of misconduct, and that he had committed multiple offenses.  
See Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings 
Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD 
Proc.Reg.”) 10(B)(1)(b), (c), and (d).  Furthermore, his utter lack of cooperation 
in the disciplinary process weighed in favor of a severe sanction, as did his refusal 
to acknowledge the extent of his misconduct.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e) and 
(g). 
{¶ 10} With respect to the Farmer grievance, the master commissioner 
found that Wagner’s misconduct had harmed an especially vulnerable client and 
that he had made no attempt at restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(h) and (i).  
The master commissioner also recognized that Wagner’s license has been under 
an attorney-registration suspension since December 2, 2005.  In re Attorney 
Registration Suspension, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 11} The master commissioner considered these aggravating factors as 
well as the mitigating factors of the case in recommending a sanction to the board.  
In mitigation, the master commissioner noted only that Wagner had no other 
blemishes on his professional record.  The master commissioner granted the 
amended motion for default and recommended a sanction of indefinite 
suspension. 
{¶ 12} The board adopted the findings of misconduct as well as the 
recommended sanction. 
{¶ 13} We have previously imposed an indefinite suspension for similar 
conduct.  In Dayton Bar Assn. v. Fox, 108 Ohio St.3d 444, 2006-Ohio-1328, 844 
N.E.2d 346, we indefinitely suspended a lawyer for keeping unearned client fees, 
lying, and failing to cooperate in disciplinary proceedings.  Also, in Columbus 
Bar Assn. v. Torian, 106 Ohio St.3d 14, 2005-Ohio-3216, 829 N.E.2d 1210, ¶ 17, 
we indefinitely suspended an attorney due to neglect of legal matters and the 
failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation. 
{¶ 14} Although Wagner did not lie to his clients, he did misappropriate 
their money and ignored their requests for refunds.  He also ignored the bar 
association’s requests for information.  These are actions warranting an indefinite 
suspension. 
{¶ 15} We agree that Wagner violated DR 9-102(B)(4) and Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G), as found by the master commissioner and the board and that an 
indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction.  Accordingly, Charles Wagner is 
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio, and he is ordered to pay 
restitution of $500 to the Thorntons and $500 to Farmer.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL 
and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2007 
5 
 
 
CUPP, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
Ellen S. Mandell, Bar Counsel, and Stuart Lippe, for relator. 
______________________