Case Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. Zerner

Citation: 1998-Ohio-513

Docket Number: 19980381

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-11-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. ZERNER. 
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Zerner (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Two-year suspension — Engaging in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation — Engaging in 
conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — Charging or 
collecting a clearly excessive fee — Handling a legal matter one is not 
competent to handle — Handling a legal matter without adequate 
preparation — Commingling client funds and attorney funds — 
Withdrawing funds of client without client’s consent — Failing to maintain 
a complete record of all funds and properties of client coming into 
attorney’s possession and failing to render an appropriate accounting to 
client of client’s funds. 
(No. 98-381 — Submitted June 24, 1998 — Decided November 25, 1998.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-15. 
 
On February 5, 1996, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent, Richard E. Zerner of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0005274, violated several Disciplinary Rules while representing 
Annette L. Fain (“Fain”) as executor of the will of her deceased husband, Beryl N. 
Fain.  Respondent filed his answer, and the matter was submitted to a panel of the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
(“board”). 
 
Based upon testimony and stipulations received at the hearing, the panel 
found that in January 1991, Fain engaged respondent to represent her as executor 
of her husband’s will.  Respondent’s inventory filed in February 1991 included an 
individual retirement account (“IRA”).  Upon being informed that the IRA was not 
 
2
a probate asset, and relying on the opinion of a bank officer that a partnership 
interest was a trust asset, respondent filed a motion in June 1991 to delete all 
assets from the inventory because they were not subject to probate.  In conjunction 
with this motion, respondent filed an application to release the estate from 
administration because it had no assets, and prepared and obtained a court entry 
granting the application.  A year later, in July 1992, respondent filed a report of 
distribution of assets in the amount of $81,500, and an application to reappoint the 
executor indicating that the estate had $21,500 in probate assets.  Respondent 
never completed the administration of the estate and never filed a final account. 
 
The panel found that no pleading filed by respondent in the descendant’s 
estate was legally or factually correct.  It also found that respondent did not obtain 
any court authorization before paying himself attorney fees from the estate, 
although the order appointing him required such authority.  Respondent’s fees 
ultimately exceeded by $17,705 the fees to which he was entitled by virtue of the 
order appointing him. 
 
The panel also found that respondent represented Fain in the purchase of a 
bowling alley, in estate planning, and in matters relating to a trust respondent had 
set up for the Fains.  In his billings to Fain, respondent not only misrepresented the 
work he had done, but he also requested and often received from Fain a single 
check which combined payments of his legal fees with payments of Fain’s real 
estate taxes and other expenses.  Respondent’s endorsements on the checks were 
accompanied by notations through which he intended to indicate the amounts 
being distributed for taxes and the amounts he allocated to his fees, but these 
notations were unclear.  Respondent commingled the funds in an escrow account 
and made withdrawals from the account for his fees and for purposes other than 
taxes.  Ultimately, some of Fain’s taxes were not paid by respondent. 
 
3
 
The panel concluded that with respect to his representation of Fain as 
executor, respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct involving 
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(6) (engaging in conduct 
that adversely reflects on the fitness to practice law), 2-106(A) and (B) (charging 
or collecting a clearly excessive fee), 6-101(A)(1) (handling a legal matter which 
he knew or should have known he was not competent to handle), and 6-101(A)(2) 
(handling a legal matter without adequate preparation).  With respect to his 
representation of Fain in other matters the panel found that respondent violated 
DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6), and 9-102 (A)(1) (commingling client funds and attorney 
funds), 9-102(A)(2) (withdrawing funds of a client without the client’s consent), 
and 9-102(B)(3) (failing to maintain a complete record of all funds and properties 
of a client coming into his possession and failing to render an appropriate 
accounting to his client of the client’s funds). 
 
In mitigation the panel noted that respondent had taken 52.25 hours of 
continuing legal education in the report period preceding his hearing, that he had 
enlisted the aid of his uncle, an experienced attorney, as his mentor, and that he 
had paid approximately $28,000 to the grievant, representing excess attorney fees 
taken and tax payments not made by him.  The panel recommended that 
respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years.  The board 
adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Julia Smith Wiley and William H. Gosline, for relator. 
 
Reginald S. Jackson, Jr., for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
4
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for 
two years.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, LAZARUS, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
CYNTHIA C. LAZARUS, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for 
RESNICK, J.