Title: Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schriver

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schriver, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-486.] 
 
                                                                
 
 
 
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. 2022-OHIO-486 
MEDINA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. SCHRIVER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Schriver, Slip Opinion No.  
2022-Ohio-486.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Failure to act with reasonable diligence, to keep a client 
reasonably informed about the status of a matter, to promptly deliver client 
papers as part of the termination of representation, and to promptly refund 
an unearned fee—Failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation—
Public reprimand. 
(No. 2021-0973—Submitted September 22, 2021—Decided February 23, 2022.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the 
Supreme Court, No. 2020-079. 
______________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Andrew Charles Schriver, of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0096887, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2017.  In 
a December 30, 2020 complaint, relator, Medina County Bar Association, charged 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
Schriver with multiple ethical violations arising from his representation of a single 
client and his failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation.  Schriver 
waived a probable-cause determination and entered stipulations of fact and 
misconduct.  After a hearing, a panel of the Board of Professional Conduct issued 
a report finding that Schriver had committed the alleged rule violations and 
recommending that he be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct.  The board 
adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the hearing 
panel.  We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct and recommended sanction. 
Stipulated Facts and Misconduct 
Count One: The Taylor Matter 
{¶ 2} On January 23, 2019, Ty Taylor retained Schriver to represent him in 
all matters related to a fraud that was allegedly perpetrated against Taylor by 
various third parties; the representation included a lawsuit that was pending against 
Taylor in the Portage County Court of Common Pleas.  Taylor paid a fee deposit 
of $2,500, and in August 2019, he made an additional $1,000 payment. 
{¶ 3} Schriver represented Taylor in the Portage County case, which was 
dismissed with prejudice on November 12, 2019.  In a related matter, however, a 
bank continued to pursue Taylor on an unpaid credit-card debt that Taylor 
contended he did not owe.  Taylor repeatedly expressed his concerns to Schriver 
about the bank’s claim and its negative effect on his credit report.  In response, 
Schriver promised to get more aggressive and send a response to the bank, but he 
never followed through on that promise. 
{¶ 4} After November 25, 2019, Taylor and one of his friends left numerous 
messages for Schriver at his place of employment and on his cell phone; they also 
attempted to reach Schriver through social media.  Schriver did not respond to their 
communications.  Although Shriver billed Taylor for only $820, Schriver did not 
refund the remaining $2,680 of Taylor’s fee or return his file until 
January Term, 2022 
 
3 
December 21, 2020—after Taylor filed a grievance and relator sent Schriver a copy 
of a proposed disciplinary complaint against him. 
{¶ 5} The parties stipulated and the board found that Schriver’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in 
representing a client), 1.4(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to comply as 
soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the client), 
1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver client papers and property as part 
of the termination of representation), and 1.16(e) (requiring a lawyer to promptly 
refund any unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment). 
Count Two: Failure to Cooperate 
{¶ 6} On March 19, 2020, relator sent a letter of inquiry to Schriver at his 
home office, which is the address that appeared on the retainer agreement he had 
Taylor sign, and also to his office email address.  He did not respond to that letter 
or two others—one that was sent to his new place of employment and one that was 
sent to his home.  Relator also made several unsuccessful attempts to reach him by 
phone.  When relator’s investigator finally spoke with Schriver by phone on May 
15, 2020, Schriver stated that he would send a written response to the grievance by 
May 19.  But Schriver did not submit his response, and the investigator’s 
subsequent efforts to reach him by phone were unsuccessful.  Schriver finally began 
to communicate with relator after being served with a proposed disciplinary 
complaint in November 2020.  Schriver ultimately waived his right to an 
independent probable-cause determination by the board.  See Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B). 
{¶ 7} The parties stipulated and the board found that Schriver’s conduct 
violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.1(b) and Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G) (both prohibiting a lawyer 
from knowingly failing to respond to demands for information in connection with 
a disciplinary matter). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
{¶ 8} We adopt the board’s findings of misconduct with respect to each of 
these counts. 
Sanction 
{¶ 9} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider all 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the attorney violated, the 
aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. V(13), and the sanctions 
imposed in similar cases. 
{¶ 10} No aggravating factors are present here.  However, the parties 
stipulated and the board agreed that five mitigating factors are present, namely, 
Schriver’s clean disciplinary record; his lack of a dishonest or selfish motive; his 
timely, good faith effort to make restitution; his full and free disclosure to the board 
and cooperative attitude toward the proceedings after he received relator’s proposed 
complaint; and evidence of his good character and reputation.  See Gov.Bar R. 
V(13)(C)(1) through (5). 
{¶ 11} Schriver testified that he has been diagnosed with several mental 
disorders.  Although he did not attempt to establish those disorders as a mitigating 
factor, he did submit evidence that he had entered into a two-year mental-health 
contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”) in July 2020.  
Shriver explained that he had fallen out of compliance with that contract for a time 
because he was concerned about regularly taking time off from work for treatment 
amidst rumors that his employer at the time, the Medina County Public Defender’s 
Office, might be closing.  He reengaged with OLAP in March 2021 and was in 
compliance with his contract at the time of his disciplinary hearing.  He testified 
that he now works in his “dream job” at the Cuyahoga County Public Defender’s 
Office, where he has a strong support system that was not available to him when he 
was in private practice and the misconduct at issue occurred.  He also stated that he 
has no plans to return to private practice. 
January Term, 2022 
 
5 
{¶ 12} In determining the appropriate sanction for Schriver’s misconduct, 
the board considered eight cases cited by the parties in support of their joint 
recommendation of a public reprimand.  For example, in Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Bhatt, 133 Ohio St.3d 131, 2012-Ohio-4230, 976 N.E.2d 870, we publicly 
reprimanded an attorney who had neglected two client matters, resulting in the 
dismissal of a child-custody case, had failed to keep his clients reasonably informed 
about the status of their matters, and had failed to inform his clients that his 
professional-liability insurance had lapsed.  Similarly, in Cleveland Metro. Bar 
Assn. v. Perry, 156 Ohio St.3d 319, 2019-Ohio-764, 126 N.E.3d 1088, we publicly 
reprimanded an attorney who had neglected a single client matter, resulting in the 
imposition of a default judgment and wage garnishment against his client.  And in 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Smith, 146 Ohio St.3d 209, 2016-Ohio-1584, 54 N.E.3d 
1208, we publicly reprimanded an attorney who had failed to attend a scheduled 
custody hearing, had failed to properly withdraw from the representation, and had 
initially failed to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation. 
{¶ 13} The board also considered several cases in which we imposed six-
month conditionally stayed suspensions on attorneys who had engaged in 
misconduct comparable to—but more egregious than—Schriver’s.  For example, 
in Columbus Bar Assn. v. Kluesener, 150 Ohio St.3d 322, 2017-Ohio-4417, 81 
N.E.3d 457, we imposed a six-month stayed suspension on an attorney who had 
failed to act with reasonable diligence, had intentionally failed to comply with 
legally proper discovery requests, had failed to provide competent representation 
to a client, and had failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of 
the matter.  But Kluesener’s misconduct was more egregious than Schriver’s 
because the combination of Kluesener’s failures resulted in the dismissal of his 
client’s case with prejudice and Kluesener had failed to inform the client that his 
conduct could provide a cause of action for legal malpractice. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
{¶ 14} In two other cases cited by the board, we imposed a six-month stayed 
suspension on attorneys who, like Schriver, had neglected single client matters, had 
failed to keep their clients reasonably informed about the status of their respective 
matters, had failed to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation, and in one 
case, had failed to deliver the client’s file to successor counsel.  See Warren Cty. 
Bar Assn. v. Brenner, 159 Ohio St.3d 367, 2020-Ohio-142, 151 N.E.3d 546; Dayton 
Bar Assn. v. Wilcoxson, 153 Ohio St.3d 279, 2018-Ohio-2699, 104 N.E.3d 772.  
But the misconduct in those cases was more egregious than the misconduct at issue 
in this case because it had prejudiced the clients’ legal claims and Brenner and 
Wilcoxson each had had an interim default suspension imposed for their failure to 
answer the resulting disciplinary complaints.  See Brenner; Wilcoxson. 
{¶ 15} Finding that Schriver’s misconduct was less egregious than that of 
the attorneys in Kluesener, Brenner, and Wilcoxson, and crediting him for his 
voluntary engagement in OLAP, ongoing mental-health treatment, payment of 
restitution, and decision to remove himself from solo practice, the board concluded 
that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction in this case. 
{¶ 16} Having independently reviewed the record and having considered 
our precedents and the significant mitigating factors that are present in this case, 
we agree that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction for Schriver’s 
misconduct. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 17} Accordingly, Andrew Charles Schriver is publicly reprimanded for 
his misconduct in this case.  Costs are taxed to Schriver. 
Judgment accordingly. 
KENNEDY, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FISCHER and STEWART, JJ., concur in the finding of a 
violation but dissent in part on the sanction and would suspend respondent for six 
months, all stayed, and require a monitoring attorney for one year to ensure 
January Term, 2022 
 
7 
respondent’s continuing compliance with his Ohio Lawyers’ Assistance Program 
obligations, which he had fallen out of compliance with for a period of time, as 
noted in the opinion. 
_________________ 
Walker & Jocke Co., L.P.A., and Patricia A. Walker; and David V. 
Gedrock, for relator. 
Andrew Charles Schriver, pro se. 
_________________