Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Fish

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FISH. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Fish (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Charging a clearly 
excessive fee. 
(No. 98-1758 — Submitted December 16, 1998 — Decided March 24, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 97-58. 
 
In October 1991, Jeanne Marie Gieski retained respondent, Baruch David 
Fish of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0001218, to defend her 
interests in a partition action arising out of a family dispute.  At their first meeting, 
respondent and Gieski entered into a written fee agreement that provided that 
respondent was to be paid $150 an hour, which was a reasonable rate in the 
Cincinnati area for an attorney of respondent’s experience.  Throughout the two 
years that he worked for Gieski, respondent maintained time records and sent 
monthly statements to her.  The time sheets reflect that respondent worked 211 
hours for Gieski for a total of $31,650 in fees that Gieski paid. 
 
In November 1993, Gieski complained to respondent that she thought his 
fees were too high.  After Gieski received $14,434.34 in March 1994 as a result of 
the lawsuit, she filed an action against respondent in common pleas court, 
asserting that the fees he had charged her were excessive.  Gieski obtained a 
judgment against respondent for $10,978.43, which respondent paid. 
 
On June 16, 1997, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent’s conduct violated DR 2-106(A) (an attorney shall not 
charge a clearly excessive fee).  Respondent answered and a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) 
 
2
received stipulations, testimony from expert witnesses, and other evidence 
presented by the parties. 
 
The panel found that Gieski obtained a judgment against respondent for 
negligently charging excessive fees and breaching his contract with her.  It cited 
specific occasions on which respondent billed time that appeared to be in excess of 
that needed to perform the itemized tasks.  The panel concluded that respondent’s 
conduct violated the Disciplinary Rule as charged.  However, it found in 
mitigation that Gieski was a “difficult client” who wanted respondent to “fight, 
fight, fight” in a bitter family feud.  It recommended that respondent receive a 
public reprimand.  The board adopted the findings, conclusion, and 
recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Edward G. Marks, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of 
the board.  Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.