Title: Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schoettler

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

Butler County Bar Association v. Schoettler. 
1 
[Cite as Butler Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schoettler (1996), _____ Ohio St.3d ____.] 
2 
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Indefinite suspension -- Neglect of an 
3 
entrusted legal matter -- Commingling of funds. 
4 
 
(No. 95-2534--Submitted January 24, 1996--Decided February 28, 
5 
1996.) 
6 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
7 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 95-16. 
8 
 
In a complaint filed with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
9 
and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”), relator, Butler County Bar 
10 
Association, charged respondent, Susan Schoettler, last known address in 
11 
Fairfield, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0037627, with two counts of 
12 
professional misconduct.  Service of the complaint by certified mail was 
13 
unsuccessful, and the complaint was served on the Clerk of the Supreme 
14 
Court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B) (clerk is agent for nonresident 
15 
attorneys or where whereabouts unknown).  A panel appointed by the board 
16 
heard the matter on relator’s motion for default, filed pursuant to Gov.Bar 
17 
R. V(6)(F). 
18 
 
2
 
Count One of the complaint alleged that respondent had violated, 
1 
inter alia, DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect of an entrusted legal matter), and 9-
2 
102(A)(2) (commingling of funds) in representing the Estate of William B. 
3 
Roof.  According to relator’s sworn summary of its investigation results, 
4 
relator accepted a check on March 21, 1990 for $7,010.40 from Janice 
5 
Revalos, the executor of the estate.  Respondent represented to Revalos that 
6 
$4,287.10 of this amount would be applied for attorney fees due, $2,600 
7 
would be paid for estate taxes, and $123.30 would be used for court costs.  
8 
Respondent purportedly advised Revalos that the estate was nearly closed, 
9 
and Revalos could distribute the assets. 
10 
 
Months after her assurances, however, respondent was cited by the 
11 
probate court for failing to file a required accounting.  On September 26, 
12 
1990, the probate court ordered respondent to show cause why the final 
13 
accounting had not yet been filed.  On the same day, respondent requested 
14 
$4,287.10 in attorney fees by filing an application in the probate court that 
15 
may have been forged with Revalos’s signature.  And nearly two years later, 
16 
on June 27, 1993, respondent was again ordered to show cause why the final 
17 
accounting had not been filed.  Respondent also failed to appear at a hearing 
18 
 
3
scheduled for July 26, 1993, at which Revalos appeared without her.  
1 
Revalos subsequently discovered that respondent had not paid the estate 
2 
taxes and penalties had accrued.  She also learned that only $1,900 had been 
3 
due in estate taxes, not $2,600, as represented by respondent. 
4 
 
Count Two of the complaint alleged that respondent violated DR 9-
5 
102 (failure to preserve identity of client’s funds and property, generally) in 
6 
failing to maintain the IOLTA trust account required by R.C. 4705.09.  
7 
While employed as a partner in the law firm of Mary G. Nash & Associates, 
8 
respondent signed checks for office expenses that were drawn on an account 
9 
purporting to be interest-bearing and exclusively for client funds. 
10 
 
The panel granted the motion for default because respondent had 
11 
failed to answer, and relator had complied with the evidentiary and other 
12 
requirements of Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  The panel also found that respondent 
13 
had committed the charged violations of DR 6-101(A)(3), [9-102] and 9-
14 
102(A)(2).  In determining the sanction for this misconduct, the panel 
15 
considered relator’s representations that respondent had been cooperative 
16 
throughout the investigation, and that as a junior partner, she may have been 
17 
acting on the poor examples of the other partner in her law firm.  The panel 
18 
 
4
recommended that respondent receive an indefinite suspension from the 
1 
practice of law. 
2 
 
The board adopted the panel’s findings of misconduct and 
3 
recommended sanction. 
4 
 
Bennett A. Manning and Sanford I. Casper, for relator. 
5 
 
Per Curiam.  Upon review of the record, we concur that respondent 
6 
committed the misconduct found by the board and agree with its 
7 
recommendation.  Respondent is therefore suspended indefinitely from the 
8 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
9 
Judgment accordingly. 
10 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER 
11 
and COOK, JJ., concur. 
12 
 
13