Case Title: Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree

Citation: 2002-Ohio-2987

Docket Number: 20020315

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-07-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 96 Ohio St.3d 50, 2002-Ohio-2987.] 
 
 
DAYTON BAR ASSOCIATION v. SEBREE. 
[Cite as Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sebree, 96 Ohio St.3d 50, 2002-Ohio-2987.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Six-month suspension with entire six months 
stayed with conditions — Neglect of an entrusted legal matter — Failing 
to seek lawful objectives of client — Failing to carry out contract for 
professional services. 
(No. 2002-0315 — Submitted May 8, 2002 — Decided July 3, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-58. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In the early spring of 2000, Angelina Paulino retained respondent, 
Ronald H. Sebree of Dayton, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0063210, to 
represent her in a breach-of-contract matter involving home improvements.  For 
many months thereafter, respondent failed to respond to numerous telephone calls 
from Paulino and failed to update her on the status of her case.  Respondent 
eventually contacted Paulino to obtain money from her to commence an action on 
her behalf.  Upon receipt of the money, respondent filed a complaint alleging 
breach of contract and other claims, but it took respondent almost four months to 
perfect service on the named defendant. 
{¶2} 
While her case was pending with service not yet perfected, Paulino 
filed a grievance with relator, Dayton Bar Association.  During relator’s 
investigation of Paulino’s grievance, its investigator determined that Paulino’s 
case was languishing, that a counterclaim had been filed by the defendant against 
Paulino, and that Paulino needed active legal representation.  Paulino then 
employed different counsel to proceed in the case. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
In May 2000, Kathryn Bush retained respondent in a collection 
matter.  Numerous subsequent attempts by Bush to contact respondent failed, and 
respondent took no action to prosecute Bush’s claim.  Respondent later could not 
locate Bush’s file.  During this time, respondent had overscheduled himself, was 
busy, and was not taking new clients.  Respondent did not return Bush’s inquiries 
because he did not realize that she was an existing client. 
{¶4} 
Respondent thereafter located Bush’s file and refunded her retainer 
and filing fees.  Due to a mathematical error in his checking account, the check 
was returned for insufficient funds.  Respondent later issued a separate check to 
Bush. 
{¶5} 
On June 11, 2001, relator filed a complaint charging respondent 
with violating DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) 
(failing to seek lawful objectives of client through reasonably available means 
permitted by law and the Disciplinary Rules), and 7-101(A)(2) (failing to carry 
out an employment contract for professional services). 
{¶6} 
The parties filed a document that set forth agreed stipulations of 
fact, agreed Disciplinary Rule violations, and agreed recommended sanctions.  In 
their agreement, the parties specified that the “complaints looked at individually 
are not heinous and do not represent intentional wrongdoing on the Respondent’s 
par[t], but are indicative of an overall pattern that suggests the Respondent needs 
assistance, guidance and counseling in regard to his time and practice 
management skills.”  The parties stipulated that respondent had violated DR 6-
101(A)(3) in the Paulino matter and DR 7-101(A)(1) and (2) in the Paulino and 
Bush matters.  The parties recommended that respondent be suspended from the 
practice of law for six months, but that the suspension be stayed provided that 
respondent agree to have his office practices and management skills monitored 
and reviewed by a representative of relator for one year or longer if the monitor 
feels that it is necessary, that respondent agree to attend a seminar on office-
January Term, 2002 
3 
management skills, preferably one specifically aimed at office-management and 
time-management skills for lawyers, and that respondent receive any further 
education or advice or perform any other acts that relator’s monitor recommends 
during the monitoring period. 
{¶7} 
The matter was submitted to a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, and the panel 
adopted the facts, conclusions, and recommended sanctions agreed to by the 
parties.  The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
panel and further recommended that the costs of the proceeding be taxed to 
respondent. 
{¶8} 
We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the 
board.  A six-month suspension from the practice of law with the entire period 
stayed upon the specified conditions is an appropriate sanction.  See, e.g., 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Harp (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 385, 745 N.E.2d 1032, where 
we imposed a comparable sanction for conduct violating DR 6-101(A)(3), 7-
101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3) where the attorney took steps to reduce 
his caseload, increase his staff, and adopt  management practices to avoid future 
problems; see, also, Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wilson (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 243, 
730 N.E.2d 957. 
{¶9} 
Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio 
for six months, with the entire six months stayed provided that respondent permit 
his office practices and management skills to be monitored and reviewed by a 
representative of relator for at least one year, that respondent attend a seminar on 
office-management skills, preferably one specifically aimed at office-management 
and time-management skills for lawyers, and that respondent receive any further 
education or advice or perform any other acts that relator’s monitor recommends 
during the monitoring period.  Failure to satisfy these conditions will result in the 
reinstatement of respondent’s stayed suspension.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissents because he would suspend respondent for six 
months without stay. 
__________________ 
 
Canice Joseph Fogarty, Jr., for relator. 
 
Ronald H. Sebree, pro se. 
__________________