Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Mills

Citation: 2006-Ohio-2290

Docket Number: 20052060

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Mills, 109 Ohio St.3d 245, 2006-Ohio-2290.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. MILLS. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Mills, 109 Ohio St.3d 245, 2006-Ohio-2290.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Collection of an illegal or clearly excessive fee 
— Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law — 
Representation of multiple clients when the exercise of professional 
judgment on one client’s behalf may be adversely affected by the 
representation of another client — One-year stayed suspension. 
(No. 2005-2060 – Submitted January 11, 2006 — Decided May 24, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-074. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Melanie Mills of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0062207, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1993. 
{¶ 2} On December 6, 2004, relator, Columbus Bar Association, charged 
respondent in a two-count complaint with violations of the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline heard the cause, including the parties’ comprehensive stipulations.  The 
panel made findings of misconduct, which the board adopted, and a 
recommendation, which the board modified. 
Misconduct 
Count I (Corchinski) 
{¶ 3} The misconduct charged in Count I arose from respondent’s 
excessive billing and collection practices in Garrett Corchinski’s child-custody, 
visitation, and support case. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} Corchinski consulted respondent on May 25, 2001, and paid her 
$1,000 as partial payment of a $1,500 retainer.  Respondent failed to credit this 
payment to Corchinski’s account.  Corchinski also signed a written fee agreement 
that, in addition to the $1,500 retainer, specified how he would be billed for time 
spent on his case.  Respondent would charge Corchinski $180 per hour for her 
time, $125 per hour for “of counsel” consultation, $90 per hour for paralegal 
work, $60 per hour for a law clerk’s help, and $50 per hour for secretarial 
assistance. 
{¶ 5} In July 2001, respondent misfiled a complaint in the Licking 
County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division.  That court dismissed 
the case in October 2001 for lack of jurisdiction, and respondent then properly 
filed the complaint in the Licking County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile and 
Probate Division, in November 2001.  Respondent charged Corchinski for her 
time in refiling the case and gave him no credit for her initial mistake. 
{¶ 6} In continuing to represent Corchinski, respondent and her office 
staff performed numerous tasks and registered their services in billing records.  
These records reveal that on at least one occasion respondent double-billed 
Corchinski for the same service, that his account was never credited for the 
amount respondent charged to file his case in the wrong court, and that he was 
aggressively billed for secretarial, clerical, and other “administrative” activities.  
Respondent blamed the duplicate charges in part on a flawed billing software 
system; however, she acknowledged her responsibility for ensuring the overall 
accuracy of invoiced charges. 
{¶ 7} Respondent also employed questionable collection practices.  In 
January 2002, respondent requested from her client’s mother, and received, 
authorization to charge various fees to the mother’s credit card.  Then, on 
February 13, 2002, shortly before the final hearing in Corchinski’s case, 
respondent directed her secretary to call Corchinski’s mother with the ultimatum 
January Term, 2006 
3 
 
that if the mother did not immediately authorize an additional $750 credit card 
charge, respondent would not appear at the hearing on Corchinski’s behalf.  
Under duress and upon assurances that there would be no further charges, 
Corchinski’s mother authorized the $750 charge on her credit card. 
{¶ 8} Respondent continued to wrest fees from Corchinski after the final 
hearing.  She billed Corchinski an additional $912.50 for work she claimed to 
have performed that month, and, although she had substantially finished 
Corchinski’s case, she asked him to sign a new fee agreement providing for 
another $1,500 retainer.  The new fee agreement provided for increased billing 
rates for respondent and her staff and required credit card authorization to 
guarantee payment of “unreplenished” retainers.  Corchinski declined to execute 
the new fee agreement. 
{¶ 9} Throughout Corchinski’s representation, respondent billed in 
excess of $6,500 for services.  The charges were increased, in part, because 
respondent billed for elements of her overhead in addition to her hourly rate.  As 
an example, respondent charged $75 for her time in conferring with her secretary 
about Corchinski’s case and $25 for the secretary’s time in conferring with her.  
She also failed to properly account for the initial $1,000 retainer that Corchinski 
paid her.  Respondent brought the discrepancy to her attention in April 2004, 
however, and she promptly credited $1,000 to Corchinski’s account. 
{¶ 10} The parties stipulated, and the board found, that respondent had 
violated DR 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that 
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) and 2-106(A) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from agreeing to charge or collecting an illegal or clearly 
excessive fee) in connection with Count I. 
Count II (Semke) 
{¶ 11} The charges in Count II arose from respondent’s representation of 
two couples in an investment venture that eventually unraveled. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 12} In March 2001, Walter and Victoria Semke approached Frank and 
Madonna Hood to invest in the operation of their horse-boarding and horse-
training facility.  The Semkes and the Hoods asked respondent to prepare the 
necessary papers to accomplish their combined business objectives.  Respondent 
agreed to represent both couples and created a limited liability company (“H & 
S”) to own the facility and a corporation (“T3E”) to operate it.  Thereafter, 
respondent continued to represent both couples, H & S, and T3E. 
{¶ 13} Several disputes later arose among the Semkes, the Hoods, and 
their enterprises.  These disagreements led to the Hoods’ attempt to buy the 
Semkes out of their interest in T3E.  Still representing all the parties to the 
transaction, respondent drafted a buyout agreement for the operating entity and 
arranged for her clients to execute the agreement.  Although respondent stipulated 
that she had disclosed the attendant risks of multiple representation and that her 
clients had consented, respondent did not secure any written waiver from her 
clients. 
{¶ 14} Even after the buyout, business relations among her clients 
continued to sour.  In February 2003, the Semkes retained new legal counsel, and 
in May 2003, the new counsel filed a civil action against the Hoods.  Respondent 
represented the Hoods and T3E in that action and filed a motion to dismiss, an 
answer and counterclaim, a motion for joinder, and a motion for a temporary 
retraining order on their behalf.  Respondent finally withdrew as counsel for the 
Hoods and T3E in September 2003, several months after the Semkes’ attorney 
moved to disqualify her. 
{¶ 15} The parties stipulated, and the board found, that respondent had 
violated DR 5-105(B) (prohibiting a lawyer from representing multiple clients 
when the exercise of professional judgment on any client’s behalf is likely to be 
adversely affected by the representation of another client). 
Recommended Sanction 
January Term, 2006 
5 
 
{¶ 16} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
board weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors in this 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.”). 
{¶ 17} As aggravating factors, the board found that respondent’s 
misconduct involved a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, and a failure to 
make restitution, as stipulated by the parties.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(c), (d), 
and (i).  The board disagreed with one stipulation, however, and found that 
respondent had acted with a selfish motive in overcharging Corchinski relative to 
Count I, an aggravating factor under BCGD Proc. Reg. 10(B)(1)(b) 
{¶ 18} In mitigation, the board accepted the stipulations that respondent 
had no prior record of discipline and that she had established her good character 
apart from the underlying misconduct.  BCGD Proc. Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (e).  In 
support of her reputation, respondent submitted a number of character letters from 
lawyers, clients, and a common pleas judge, all commending her careful and 
industrious work habits, honesty, and professionalism.  The board further found 
that respondent had cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(d). 
{¶ 19} The parties stipulated to a one-year suspension of respondent’s 
license to practice law, all stayed on the condition that relator appoint a lawyer to 
monitor management practices of respondent’s law office during the stayed 
suspension.  The panel accepted this recommendation but added additional 
conditions to the stay of respondent’s suspension – that respondent pay $1,000 in 
restitution to Corchinski, an amount that respondent offered to pay prior to the 
panel’s disposition, that she commit no further professional misconduct, and that 
she pay the cost of the disciplinary proceedings.  The board adopted the panel’s 
recommendation, except that it declined the restitution requirement and directed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
respondent to instead participate in relator’s fee-dispute arbitration program to 
resolve the amount she overcharged Corchinski. 
Review 
{¶ 20} We agree that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(6), 2-106(A), and 
5-105(B), as found by the board.  We further agree with the board’s 
recommended sanction. 
{¶ 21} Respondent is therefore suspended from the practice of law in 
Ohio for one year; however, this suspension is stayed on the conditions that 
during the stayed suspension she (1) permit an attorney appointed by relator to 
monitor management practices of her law office, (2) participate in relator’s fee-
dispute arbitration program to resolve the amount she overcharged Corchinski, (3) 
commit no further misconduct, and (4) pay the costs of the disciplinary 
proceeding.  If respondent violates the conditions of the stay, the stay will be 
lifted, and respondent will serve the entire one-year suspension. 
{¶ 22} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, O’CONNOR and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur in part and dissent in 
part. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
{¶ 23} I concur in the majority’s opinion, except that I would not require 
Corchinski to go through arbitration.  Rather, I would require respondent to repay 
the $1,000 to Corchinski as recommended by the panel.  Corchinski has expended 
enough time and expense on this matter.  We have already found that respondent 
collected an excessive fee.  Why should we require Corchinski to obtain new 
counsel and go through further legal hassles to collect an overcharged fee?  We 
should conclude this matter now. 
January Term, 2006 
7 
 
{¶ 24} I would adopt the panel’s recommendation and order restitution in 
the amount of $1,000, but also let Corchinski have the choice to either accept the 
$1,000 or pursue arbitration if he feels he is actually entitled to a greater refund. 
{¶ 25} Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the portion of the opinion 
relating to arbitration. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Bruce Campbell, Bar Counsel, and Michael J. Hardesty, for relator. 
 
J. Greg Tipton, for respondent. 
______________________