Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Davis

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Davis, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-6016.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-6016 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. DAVIS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Davis,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-6016.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2011-1081—Submitted August 8, 2011—Decided November 29, 2011.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 10-056. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Sherry Darlene Davis of Waverly, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0068036, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1997.  In 
2009, Davis was suspended from the practice of law for two years, with one year 
conditionally stayed.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Davis, 121 Ohio St.3d 84, 2009-
Ohio-500, 902 N.E.2d 25, ¶ 17.  On April 29, 2010, in response to a motion to 
show cause filed by relator, Disciplinary Counsel, the court imposed an actual 
two-year suspension on Davis.  Davis’s term suspension has expired, but the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
conditions of her reinstatement remain unfulfilled, and at the present time, Davis 
has not applied for reinstatement. 
{¶ 2} On May 27, 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged Davis in 
a three-count complaint with numerous violations of the Rules of Professional 
Conduct.  This is Davis’s third appearance before this court.  The Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommends that we indefinitely 
suspend Davis’s license to practice law.  The parties have submitted stipulations 
of fact and misconduct for some of the allegations, and a panel of the board 
conducted a hearing on the remaining allegations.  The panel accepted the parties’ 
agreed stipulations, made additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, and 
recommended that Davis be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and 
make restitution to her clients. The board agreed, adding that the suspension run 
concurrently to her term suspension that is continuing.  We adopt the board’s 
findings of fact and conclusions of law that Davis violated ethical standards 
incumbent on Ohio lawyers, but we impose a separate indefinite suspension of 
Davis’s license to practice law in Ohio. 
Misconduct 
Count 1 (The Cash Station Matter) 
{¶ 3} Joann Taylor paid Davis $300 to work on a custody matter for her 
daughter involving Taylor’s grandson.  Taylor also hired Davis to do garnishment 
and collection work for a business called Cash Station.  Davis did no work on the 
custody matter prior to her suspension and failed to return the client file and any 
unused fees as promised in her postsuspension letter.  Disciplinary Counsel also 
alleged that Davis failed to return files on uncompleted work and fees to Cash 
Station. 
{¶ 4} The board found that during her suspension, Davis continued to 
receive checks belonging to Cash Station totaling $1,299.58.  Disciplinary 
Counsel alleged that the funds were converted for Davis’s personal use and 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
rightfully belonged to Cash Station.  Testimony from witnesses Taylor (former 
manager of Cash Station) and Debra Stone (current record-keeper of Cash Station, 
now defunct) explained that the Portsmouth Municipal Court sent checks directly 
to Davis for money that Davis collected through her garnishment work.  Davis 
was to keep her fee and remit the balance to Cash Station.  The municipal court 
received payments from garnishees and sent subsequent checks to Davis from 
November 26, 2007, until April 30, 2009. 
{¶ 5} Taylor alleged that Cash Station had received only a few checks 
from Davis and that there were many more payments owed to it.  Disciplinary 
Counsel, however, could not provide detailed records with names of garnishees, 
how much of each check was retained by Davis, or how much she sent her client, 
Cash Station.  Thus, the board concluded that no definitive proof existed to 
substantiate Disciplinary Counsel’s claim that Davis kept the entire amount 
remitted by the court and converted it.  However, the board also concluded that 
the stipulations documented Davis’s repeated failure to reply to emailed letters of 
inquiry and requests for documents that she had promised to submit to 
Disciplinary Counsel.  Further, Davis failed to produce requested materials after 
the single telephone conversation she had with Disciplinary Counsel. 
{¶ 6} The parties have stipulated, and we agree, that as alleged in the 
complaint, Davis’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) (requiring a lawyer to 
respond to a demand for information from a disciplinary authority), 8.4(d) 
(prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and 
Gov.Bar.R. V(4)(G) (requiring an attorney to cooperate in a disciplinary 
investigation).  In addition, the board also concluded, and we agree, that as 
alleged in the complaint, Davis’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a 
lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 
1.16(d) (as part of the termination of representation, requiring a lawyer to deliver 
to the client all papers and property to which the client is entitled), and 1.16(e) 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
(requiring a lawyer who withdraws from employment to refund promptly any part 
of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned). 
{¶ 7} Because Disciplinary Counsel did not present clear and convincing 
evidence that Davis converted funds remitted by Portsmouth Municipal Court that 
were the rightful possession of Cash Station, the board dismissed the alleged 
violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(b) (prohibiting an illegal act that reflects adversely 
on the lawyer’s honesty or trustworthiness).  Further, the board dismissed alleged 
violations of both Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) (prohibiting a clearly excessive fee) and 
8.4(h) (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 
practice law). 
Count 2 (The O’Rourke Matter) 
{¶ 8} Steven O’Rourke paid Davis $2,500 to appeal a divorce judgment.  
Davis filed an appeal, as well as several motions for stay, which were denied, 
after which Davis failed to do any work on the case.  In February 2009, Davis 
notified O’Rourke of her license suspension and promised to refund any unused 
portion of the retainer.  O’Rourke made several requests for the return of his 
complete file and his retainer, but Davis ignored him. 
{¶ 9} On November 5, 2009, Disciplinary Counsel sent a letter of inquiry 
concerning O’Rourke’s grievance by certified mail to the address that Davis had 
registered with the Supreme Court Office of Attorney Services.  The letter was 
returned unclaimed.  A few weeks later, Disciplinary Counsel was able to 
communicate with Davis by email, and she claimed ignorance of the grievances 
but promised to cooperate.  She ignored further emails. 
{¶ 10} O’Rourke testified that the two-year period in which his appeal 
was delayed was harmful both to him and to his children, whose company he was 
denied.  Further, because Davis did not return the $2,500 retainer, he had trouble 
retaining another attorney to complete the work.  O’Rourke further testified that 
Davis also promised to deliver a draft of the appellate brief, which she claimed to 
January Term, 2011 
5 
 
have almost completed, to O’Rourke’s new attorney, but she failed to do so.  The 
board further noted that as of the date of the board report, neither the retainer nor 
files had been returned to O’Rourke. 
{¶ 11} The parties have stipulated, and we agree, that as alleged in the 
complaint, Davis’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) and 
Gov.Bar.R. V(4)(G). 
{¶ 12} In addition, the board also concluded, and we agree, that as alleged 
in the complaint, Davis’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d), 1.16(e), and 
1.31. 
{¶ 13} The board dismissed an alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) 
because Disciplinary Counsel failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence 
that Davis made an agreement for, charged, or collected a clearly excessive fee.  
We concur and dismiss this charge. 
Count 3 (The Shreck Matter) 
{¶ 14} In March 2005, John and Carolyn Shreck hired Davis to prepare an 
estate plan for them.  When they learned in 2009 of Davis’s license suspension, 
they contacted her to obtain their original wills and estate-planning documents.  
The Shrecks left multiple telephone messages for Davis that went unreturned, and 
they sent a letter to her by certified mail, which was returned unclaimed.  The 
Shrecks were ultimately able to obtain their original wills from Davis’s former 
law firm, but when they were unable to obtain their complete files, they filed a 
grievance with Disciplinary Counsel. 
{¶ 15} Disciplinary Counsel mailed a letter of inquiry to the address that 
Davis had registered with this court, but it was returned unclaimed. Davis replied 
to Disciplinary Counsel’s email, stating that she was unaware of any new 
grievances but would promptly send the requested documents as soon as she 
received the new grievances.  Disciplinary Counsel mailed a second letter of 
inquiry by regular mail, which was not returned, but no response was received.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
The board found that the signed stipulations established Davis’s failure to reply to 
the grievance or to the email correspondences requesting the return of the 
Shrecks’ estate-planning file. 
{¶ 16} The parties have stipulated, and we agree, that as alleged in this 
count of the complaint, Davis’s conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d), 8.1(b), 
8.4(d), and 8.4(h) and Gov.Bar.R. V(4)(G). 
Aggravation and Mitigation 
{¶ 17} The panel and board found the following aggravating factors 
pursuant to Section 10(B) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on 
Complaints and Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”):  Davis has been previously disciplined, she 
exhibited a dishonest or selfish motive by accepting client retainers, performing 
little to no work, and then failing to return the client retainers and failing to make 
restitution, she engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving three clients and 
multiple offenses, she failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, she refused 
to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct, and she harmed vulnerable 
victims. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), and (h). 
{¶ 18} The board concluded, and we agree, that there are no mitigating 
factors. 
Sanction 
{¶ 19} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, in addition to 
weighing aggravation and mitigation, we consider all relevant factors, including 
the duties violated by the lawyer in question and the sanctions imposed in similar 
cases.  Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 
775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. 
{¶ 20} We have identified Davis’s breaches of her duties to her clients, 
the legal profession, and the judicial system.  The stipulations submitted by the 
parties contain no recommended sanction.  At the hearing, Disciplinary Counsel 
January Term, 2011 
7 
 
requested an indefinite suspension based on the nature of the misconduct, the 
harm caused, the lack of mitigation, the profusion of aggravating factors, and 
precedent. 
{¶ 21} Disciplinary Counsel cited three cases in support of his 
recommendation to the panel, all of which we find similar to the case at bar.  In 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Gottehrer, 124 Ohio St.3d 519, 2010-Ohio-929, 
2010-Ohio-929, 924 N.E.2d 825, we indefinitely suspended an attorney for 
accepting retainers in two cases in which he failed to do the work, failed to 
respond to communications from clients, failed to return retainers, and failed to 
cooperate with the disciplinary process.  Id. at ¶ 3.  In Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Clovis, 125 Ohio St.3d 434, 2010-Ohio-1859, 928 N.E.2d 1078, we indefinitely 
suspended an attorney for failing to do work, failing to return documents and a 
$4,000 retainer, and failing to cooperate in the disciplinary process.  Id. at ¶ 2.  
Finally, in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Van Sickle, 128 Ohio St.3d 376, 2011-Ohio-
774, 944 N.E.2d 677, we indefinitely suspended an attorney for practicing while 
under a license suspension, failing to register with the Supreme Court, failing to 
complete work, and failing to respond to requests for return of funds and 
documentation.  That respondent had shown some evidence of past depression. 
{¶ 22} Having considered the aggravating factors and that no mitigating 
factors exist in this case, and having considered the sanctions previously imposed 
for comparable conduct, we adopt the board’s recommended sanction of an 
indefinite suspension.  We also order restitution to her clients Joann Taylor and 
Steven O’Rourke. 
{¶ 23} Accordingly, we indefinitely suspend Sherry Darlene Davis from 
the practice of law.  We condition any future reinstatement on the submission of 
proof that Davis has fulfilled the conditions of both her term suspension and her 
indefinite suspension and has made restitution as follows: $300 to Joann Taylor, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
an accounting to Cash Station and return of any funds not accounted for, and 
$2,500 to Steven O’Rourke.  Costs are taxed to Davis. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Sherry Darlene Davis, pro se. 
______________________