Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Kizer

Citation: 2009-Ohio-4763

Docket Number: 20090466

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-09-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Kizer, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-4763.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2009-OHIO-4763 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. KIZER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Kizer, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-
4763.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Multiple violations of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct — License suspension. 
(No. 2009-0466 — Submitted April 21, 2009 — Decided September 17, 2009.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 08-007. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Tanya Johnston Kizer, of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0073402, was admitted to the Ohio Bar in 2001.  In September 
2008, she registered her professional status as inactive.  The Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that this court suspend 
her license to practice law for 18 months, based on findings that she neglected 
several legal matters to the prejudice of her clients’ interests, accepted retainers 
that she did not deposit in her trust account, received fees for work she did not 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
perform, and failed to return those unearned fees.  We agree that respondent 
committed professional misconduct as found by the board and that her conduct 
warrants an 18-month suspension. 
{¶ 2} In a four-count amended complaint, relator, Columbus Bar 
Association, charged respondent with violations of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and the Gov.Bar R. VI(1)(D) 
requirement that attorneys notify the Supreme Court Attorney Registration Office 
of the attorney’s current address.  A panel of the board conducted a hearing, at 
which the parties offered stipulations of fact.  The parties withdrew stipulation 
five, and the panel unanimously adopted the remaining stipulated facts as part of 
the findings of fact in this matter.  After the hearing, the parties submitted a joint 
memorandum to assist the panel in determining which violations occurred before 
and after the February 1, 2007 effective date of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct.  The panel treated that memorandum as a stipulation, but found that 
certain stipulated violations were not proven by clear and convincing evidence to 
have occurred before February 1, 2007. 
{¶ 3} Based upon the stipulations, the panel made findings of fact and 
conclusions of law and recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for 18 months, commencing on September 17, 2008 – the date that 
respondent voluntarily changed her registration status to inactive.  Additionally, 
the panel recommended that her reinstatement be subject to the more stringent 
requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(C) through (G), including making restitution 
and (1) continuing to work with qualified mental-health professionals of her 
choice as necessary, (2) immediately submitting to a substance-abuse assessment 
by the Ohio Lawyer’s Assistance Program (“OLAP”) or a comparable qualified 
agency, and (3) fully complying with any treatment regimen or other 
recommendations by OLAP or the comparable qualified agency regarding 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
substance abuse.  The board adopted the panel’s findings fact, conclusions of law, 
and recommendation. 
Background Facts 
{¶ 4} The board found that respondent graduated from law school in 
2000, but did not begin her private practice until 2003.  The board noted that in 
addition to the pressure of being a young sole practitioner, respondent 
experienced a number of serious stress factors in her personal life.  As a cost-
saving measure, she at one point attempted to practice law using a virtual office, 
where she received mail and met with clients, while conducting the remainder of 
her work from home.  But by early 2007, she had effectively abandoned her 
practice when she failed to return telephone calls, check her e-mail messages, 
retrieve her mail, and attend court appointments. 
{¶ 5} In June, July, and August 2007, relator received grievances filed 
by respondent’s former clients, Chad Webb, Joseph Watson, and John Salmons.  
Relator’s initial efforts to serve those grievances upon respondent were 
unsuccessful because she no longer had an office or received mail the address she 
registered with this court.  Respondent became aware of the grievances in late 
August 2007, and voluntarily sought assistance from the Ohio Lawyer Assistance 
Program (“OLAP”).  Although she met with relator’s counsel in September 2007, 
she did not respond to the grievances in writing as requested.  Although she did 
submit a written response to a fourth grievance filed by Derwin Hairston, her 
response was not timely.  Despite difficulty maintaining contact with respondent, 
relator was able to depose respondent in March 2008. 
{¶ 6} Stephanie Krznarich, a licensed independent social worker 
supervisor and licensed chemical dependency counselor at OLAP, conducted an 
assessment and diagnosed respondent with drug and alcohol dependencies, as 
well as mental disorders. Respondent signed a four-year OLAP contract, but 
abandoned it after only 11 days, citing a personality clash with one OLAP 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
employee and her discomfort with OLAP’s emphasis on chemical dependency, 
which she did not believe was her problem. 
{¶ 7} In October 2007, respondent elected to seek mental-health 
treatment without OLAP’s supervision.  After an initial assessment at Netcare 
Access, a crisis mental-health clinic, respondent began to see a counselor.  And 
after a brief hospitalization for psychiatric care, she continued to receive 
psychiatric care on an outpatient basis.  The panel accepted into evidence, without 
objection, a letter from respondent’s treating psychiatrist stating: “Her diagnosis 
is major depression recurrent severe with no psychosis.  With this diagnosis it is 
determined that her mental disability contributed to her misconduct at work as a 
lawyer.  Currently, she is under treatment and her symptoms are under control.”  
In that letter, respondent’s psychiatrist also opined that respondent will be able to 
return to work as a lawyer and that she will be able to practice “ethically, 
competently, and professionally.” 
{¶ 8} Respondent stipulated and the board found that respondent had 
committed the following misconduct. 
Count One 
{¶ 9} In 2005, Chad Webb paid respondent $1,000 to pursue child-
custody and dependency matters.  Respondent did not deposit this retainer in her 
trust account.  In June 2006, respondent also filed a motion for allocation of a 
dependency exemption in a separate matter.  By March 2007, Webb was unable to 
locate respondent.  She failed to communicate with Webb, as she had abandoned 
her office and had left no forwarding information.  Respondent failed to notify 
Webb of a May 2007 hearing in his allocation-of-dependency exemption matter 
and failed to appear on his behalf, resulting in dismissal of the motion.  After 
Webb filed a grievance, respondent secured a November 2007 hearing date for 
Webb’s child custody and dependency case.  Respondent failed to appear, and the 
magistrate dismissed the matter.  Although respondent obtained reinstatement of 
January Term, 2009 
5 
 
the case, Webb again had difficulty contacting her and obtained new counsel.  
These defects in respondent’s representation of Webb caused him delay and 
expense. 
Count Two 
{¶ 10} In January 2007, Joseph Watson paid respondent $800 to represent 
him in a visitation matter.  Respondent failed to file the documentation required to 
establish Watson’s paternity, however, and she failed to appear at an August 2007 
hearing on his behalf.  Neither Watson nor his new attorney could reach 
respondent after March 2007.  Respondent has not forwarded Watson’s file to his 
new attorney and has not returned Watson’s fees.  Her conduct substantially 
delayed and hampered Watson’s legal objective of securing visitation with his 
children. 
Count Three 
{¶ 11} In October 2007, respondent accepted a $500 retainer from Derwin 
L. Hairston to file a motion to modify parental rights.  Respondent filed the 
motion, but when she failed to appear at the December hearing, the trial court 
continued the matter.  Hairston never heard from respondent again.  The trial 
court granted his pro se motion for continuance to obtain new counsel, but he 
suffered delay and economic loss as a result of respondent’s failure to act on his 
behalf.  Although she did not earn it, respondent has not refunded Hairston’s 
retainer. 
Count Four 
{¶ 12} In December 2006, John Salmons paid respondent $1,500 to 
represent him in a divorce.  Respondent failed to deposit the retainer in her trust 
account, even though she had not earned the fees.  Although respondent made 
several court appearances for Salmons, he was ultimately unable to reach her and 
hired new counsel.  Despite her representations that she would send Salmons a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
statement and return any balance due, respondent never provided Salmons with 
either an accounting or a refund. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 13} Respondent admits that she engaged in a pattern of misconduct by 
neglecting legal matters entrusted to her and prejudicing the interests of clients 
Chad Webb, Joseph Watson, Derwin L. Hairston, and John Salmons.  She 
stipulated that she accepted retainers from Webb and Salmons for fees to be 
earned in the future but failed to deposit them in her trust account.  She further 
acknowledged that she did not earn the fees she collected from Watson and 
Hairston and has not returned the unearned portion of those fees, although she 
intends to do so. 
{¶ 14} The record demonstrates that despite the complaining clients’ 
repeated efforts to reach respondent during the course of her representation, they 
could not reach her.  She failed to respond to communications regarding their 
legal matters and failed to attend numerous court hearings.  Respondent neglected 
her duties as an attorney through her inaction and unavailability, causing delay, 
additional expense, and prejudice to her clients. 
{¶ 15} The parties have stipulated, the board has found, and we conclude 
that relator has proven by clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated 
the following provisions of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct with respect 
to each of the four counts in the complaint:  Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (failing to provide 
competent representation), 1.3 (failing to act with reasonable diligence and 
promptness), 1.4(a)(3) (failing to keep the client reasonably informed about the 
status of a matter), and 8.4(h) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on the 
lawyer’s fitness to practice law).  The parties have further stipulated, and we 
concur, that relator proved by clear and convincing evidence that with respect to 
Salmons, respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c) (failing to place unearned 
funds in an IOLTA account) and (d) (failing to provide an accounting, and failing 
January Term, 2009 
7 
 
to promptly deliver to a client funds to which he is entitled), and with respect to 
Hairston, Prof.R.Cond. 1.15(d). 
{¶ 16} Because some of the respondent’s actions in the Salmons matter 
allegedly occurred before February 1, 2007, the effective date of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct, relator also charged respondent with violations of the Code 
of Professional Responsibility.  Although the parties stipulated to respondent’s 
violation of several of these Disciplinary Rules, the panel and the board found that 
relator has proven by clear and convincing evidence only that respondent had 
violated DR 9-102(A)(2) (failure to place funds of a client in an IOLTA account).  
Because the evidence of the remaining alleged violations of the Code of 
Professional Responsibility did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the 
conduct occurred prior to February 1, 2007, the board recommended the dismissal 
of the additionally charged violations.  In accord with the panel recommendation, 
the board also recommends dismissal of the alleged violations of Gov.Bar R. 
VI(1)(D).  We adopt these findings and recommendations of the board in toto. 
Sanction 
{¶ 17} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the duties the lawyer violated, the lawyer’s mental 
state, and sanctions imposed in similar cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 
96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, at ¶ 16. In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
listed in 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.”).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, at ¶ 21.  Because each disciplinary 
case is unique, we are not limited to the factors specified in the rule but may take 
into account “all relevant factors” in determining what sanction to impose.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 18} As aggravating factors, the board noted that respondent’s pattern of 
misconduct extended over a period of several months and involved multiple 
violations that harmed some of her clients.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c) and (d). 
She failed to honor her OLAP contract and failed to fully cooperate in the 
disciplinary process during the investigative phase, although she was cooperative 
during the later stages of the proceeding.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(e) 
Additionally, respondent has not yet made restitution to her clients for unearned 
fees. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(f). 
{¶ 19} In mitigation, the board found that respondent has no prior 
disciplinary record, demonstrated a cooperative attitude at the hearing, BCGD 
10(B)(2)(a) and (d), and remorse for her conduct, and acknowledged her duty to 
make restitution to former clients for unearned fees.  Although the unsworn letter 
from respondent’s psychiatrist did not fully satisfy the requirements of BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g), the board noted that it demonstrated a clear inference that 
respondent’s major depression contributed to her misconduct. 
{¶ 20} Additionally, the board noted that respondent appears to possess 
the skills and intelligence necessary to practice law and make a positive 
contribution to society.  She is sincere in her efforts to get her life in order and to 
conquer her mental difficulties.  Although her testimony suggests that respondent 
believes that she will be ready to resume the practice of law within 18 months, the 
board expressed concern that no one presented medical testimony to address the 
timetable for her recovery.  Moreover, as the board observed, it is unclear from 
the record whether respondent has a substance-abuse problem for which she needs 
treatment. 
{¶ 21} Based upon the foregoing, the board recommends that we suspend 
respondent from the practice of law for 18 months and make her reinstatement 
subject to the more stringent requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(C) through (G), 
which includes restitution, as well as the prerequisites that she (1) continue to 
January Term, 2009 
9 
 
work with qualified mental-health professionals of her choice as necessary, (2) 
immediately submit to a substance-abuse assessment by OLAP or a comparable 
qualified agency, and (3) fully comply with any recommendations by OLAP or 
the comparable qualified agency regarding substance abuse. 
{¶ 22} As the board has recognized, we have previously imposed two-
year suspensions for comparable conduct that also involved lies and deceit.  See, 
e.g., Columbus Bar Assn. v. Ellis, 120 Ohio St.3d 89, 2008-Ohio-5278, 896 
N.E.2d 703, ¶ 4, 13 (two-year suspension for engaging in a pattern of deceit, 
neglect, and miscommunication with 18 clients); Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Bowman, 110 Ohio St.3d 480, 2006-Ohio-4333, 854 N.E.2d 480, ¶ 36, 40 (two- 
year suspension for multiple instances of neglect, dismissal of client matters with 
prejudice, and intentional prejudice or damage to a client during the course of the 
professional relationship).  We have also imposed two-year suspensions with part 
of the suspension stayed in cases involving client neglect, failure to deposit 
retainers into a client trust account, and failure to promptly return unearned fees to 
clients upon request.  See Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ryan, 109 Ohio St.3d 301, 2006-
Ohio-2422, 847 N.E.2d 430, ¶ 20-21 (two-year suspension with second year 
stayed on conditions after weighing his 27 years of practice without disciplinary 
action as mitigating factor); Disciplinary Counsel v. Friedman, 114 Ohio St.3d 1, 
2007-Ohio-2477, 866 N.E.2d 1076, ¶ 63 (two-year suspension with final six 
months stayed on conditions based in part on the mitigating factor of substance 
abuse); Disciplinary Counsel v. Greco, 107 Ohio St.3d 155, 2005-Ohio-6045, 837 
N.E.2d 369, ¶ 57 (two-year suspension with 18 months stayed based, in part, on 
the mitigating factor of substance abuse); Disciplinary Counsel v. Jaffe, 102 Ohio 
St.3d 273, 2004-Ohio-2685, 809 N.E.2d 1122, ¶ 18 (two-year suspension with 
one year stayed based in part on the mitigating factor of clinical depression).  But 
in this case, based upon respondent’s ongoing mental health difficulties and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
possible substance abuse, the board stated that respondent should not be permitted 
to return to the practice of law in less than 18 months. 
{¶ 23} After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case 
and considering the sanctions imposed for comparable conduct previously, we 
adopt the board’s recommended sanction.  Accordingly, respondent is hereby 
suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 18 months commencing on 
September 17, 2008.  Her reinstatement shall be conditioned upon making 
restitution to her clients in the following amounts:  $1,000 to Chad Webb, $800 to 
Joseph Watson, $500 to Derwin Hairston, and $1,500 to John Salmons.  In 
addition, respondent must satisfy the requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(C) 
through (G) and must (1) continue to work with qualified mental-health 
professionals of her choice as necessary, (2) immediately submit to a substance-
abuse assessment by OLAP or a comparable qualified agency, and (3) fully 
comply with any recommendations by OLAP or a comparable qualified agency 
regarding substance abuse.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Isaac Brant Ledman & Teetor and Joanne S. Peters; and Bruce A. 
Campbell and A. Alysha Clous, for relator. 
__________________