Title: Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ballou

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ballou, 109 Ohio St.3d 152, 2006-Ohio-2037.] 
 
 
 
CUYAHOGA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BALLOU. 
[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ballou,  
109 Ohio St.3d 152, 2006-Ohio-2037.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Neglecting an entrusted legal matter — Public 
reprimand. 
(No. 2005-1170 — Submitted August 23, 2005 — Decided May 10, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-053. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Scott H. Ballou of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0025669, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1980.  
On February 19, 2004, relator, Cuyahoga County Bar Association, charged in an 
amended complaint that respondent had engaged in professional misconduct.  A 
panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the 
cause, including the parties’ stipulations, and made findings of fact, conclusions 
of law, and a recommendation, which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 2} The board found that respondent had violated DR 6-101(A)(3) 
(prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting an entrusted legal matter) because he did 
not appear on a client’s behalf at an eviction proceeding. 
{¶ 3} Respondent agreed to help the client buy his residence and avoid 
eviction.  Respondent requested a $1,000 retainer for his services.  Respondent 
and the landowner’s lawyer exchanged contracts to document the transaction, but 
the landowner’s lawyer wanted verification of financing before proceeding with 
the sale and terminating the eviction.  Respondent’s client responded with a letter 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
from a third party confirming the writer’s intention to give the client the purchase 
price as a gift.  Respondent was skeptical, as was the landowner’s lawyer. 
{¶ 4} Respondent was also concerned because his client had not yet paid 
the retainer he had requested.  Respondent advised the client that he could not 
continue representing him and would not appear in court on the client’s behalf 
without payment.  Respondent also told the landowner’s lawyer that he no longer 
represented the client because he had not been paid.  The eviction case against the 
client proceeded to a hearing, which neither respondent nor his client attended.  
After the hearing, the landowner regained possession of the property, and officials 
removed the contents of the client’s home. 
{¶ 5} Although respondent’s client had not paid his fee, the board still 
found respondent guilty of neglect.  The board concluded that the client, who had 
apparently frequented the same tavern as respondent and who had engaged 
respondent for a prior traffic case, had come to expect from their past professional 
relationship that respondent would accept late payments while continuing to 
provide representation.  The board also noted that respondent did not confirm his 
decision to withdraw in writing. 
{¶ 6} Relator also asserted that respondent’s memory and work were 
suffering from his consuming alcohol during the day.  Respondent conceded that 
prior to May 2002, he had regularly consumed alcohol at lunch and would return 
to work, sometimes seeing clients or making court appearances.  He also admitted 
to being at times impaired due to alcohol while working. 
{¶ 7} After finding a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3), the panel and board 
recommended the dismissal of other charged misconduct related to the client’s 
eviction case.  The panel and board also recommended dismissal of misconduct 
alleged in connection with an incarcerated client for whom respondent had filed a 
motion for judicial release.  The incarcerated client contended that respondent had 
filed the motion, knowing it would fail, for the sole purpose of charging him 
January Term, 2006 
3 
$1,500.  The panel and board found that relator had not shown that respondent 
had acted unethically in charging the client, as he had a legitimate, albeit 
unsuccessful, argument that the client qualified for this relief. 
Sanction 
{¶ 8} In weighing the aggravating factors of respondent’s case, the panel 
and board found that respondent had harmed his client by impermissibly missing 
a court date that led to the client’s eviction.  See Section 10(B)(1)(h) of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  
The board observed that respondent should have notified the client and opposing 
counsel in writing of his withdrawal. 
{¶ 9} In mitigation, respondent explained his difficulties with alcohol.  
He did not attempt to establish, however, that alcoholism had caused his neglect, a 
connection that is required for showing mitigation under BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(g)(ii).  Nonetheless, respondent recounted that after being confronted in 
an intervention by his family, two judges, and associates, he completed a ten-
week outpatient treatment program in July 2002.  He has since completed the 
terms of a contract for his recovery with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program, 
and he continues to abide by the contract.  He also attends three Alcoholics 
Anonymous meetings weekly. 
{¶ 10} Respondent, a practicing lawyer for 25 years, has not been 
sanctioned for professional misconduct before.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(2)(a).  He is a former assistant county prosecutor, but he now maintains a 
criminal-defense and personal-injury practice.  Respondent has been associated 
with several law firms, but was in a solo practice at the time of the panel hearing. 
{¶ 11} Relator advocated a public reprimand.  Respondent argued for 
dismissal of all the charges.  The panel recommended that respondent be publicly 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
reprimanded for his neglect, and the board adopted that recommendation.  
Respondent does not object to the board’s findings or the recommended sanction. 
Review 
{¶ 12} We agree with the board’s finding of misconduct and that a public 
reprimand is appropriate.  Respondent is therefore publicly reprimanded for his 
violation of DR 6-101(A)(3).  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, O’CONNOR and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 13} I respectfully dissent.  Because I believe that there was no contract 
for employment between respondent and his former client, I would dismiss the 
charge.  I do not agree that accepting late payment on one prior case from a 
drinking buddy is sufficient ground for creating a subsequent contract for new 
employment. 
{¶ 14} Furthermore, even if a contract for employment initially existed, I 
believe that the client breached the contract by failing to pay the retainer.  The 
respondent told the client and opposing counsel that he would not participate as 
counsel in the eviction matter without payment.  Therefore, the client could not 
reasonably rely on respondent’s continued representation just because he had 
accepted late payment in one prior matter. 
{¶ 15} The majority reasons that because respondent previously accepted 
late payment from this client in another matter and because respondent had not 
confirmed in writing that he would not represent the client unless the client paid 
the retainer, his failure to appear at the eviction proceeding constituted neglect of 
a legal matter.  I believe that this holding sends a confusing message to the bar.  
January Term, 2006 
5 
Does acceptance of late payment in one prior case bind the attorney to accept 
future late payments in new cases?  Does a casual or social relationship between 
the parties create reliance where it normally would not exist?  Should an 
attorney’s failure to confirm withdrawal in writing result in a disciplinary charge?  
In Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Donlin (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 152, 155, 666 N.E.2d 
1137, we expressly held that the Disciplinary Rules do not require that notice to a 
client of withdrawal from employment be reduced to writing. 
{¶ 16} Here, the respondent told the former client and opposing counsel 
that he would no longer actively represent the client in this matter. He specifically 
told the client that he would not appear in court on his behalf. The record does not 
reflect that respondent even filed an entry of appearance in the pending eviction 
proceeding.  Nevertheless, the majority determines that respondent neglected a 
legal matter by failing to appear at the hearing. 
{¶ 17} This conclusion directly contradicts the holding in Smith v. Conley, 
109 Ohio St.3d 141, 2006-Ohio-2035, ___ N.E.2d ___, in which this court 
concluded that the attorney-client relationship between Smith and Conley was 
terminated when Conley informed Smith that he would no longer represent him 
after Smith, having been convicted at trial, asked Conley to request a new trial 
based on allegedly exculpatory evidence that Smith claimed to have discovered.  
Although Conley had not yet withdrawn as counsel of record as required by local 
court rules and was still counsel of record when he told his client that he would no 
longer represent him, this court considered the attorney-client relationship 
terminated at that point for purposes of accruing a cause of action for legal 
malpractice. 
{¶ 18} In Conley, the court accepted that Conley had terminated the 
attorney-client relationship through a telephone conversation and two letters to his 
client memorializing that conversation, although he remained counsel of record 
before the court.  Here, the respondent notified his client that he would not 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
represent him without payment and that he would not represent him in the 
eviction action.  The majority refuses to accept respondent’s representation and 
instead issues sanctions for his conduct.  I believe that the results in these two 
cases are inconsistent and confusing for the bar.  Therefore, I respectfully dissent. 
__________________ 
 
Stanley E. Stein & Associates Co., L.P.A., and Stanley E. Stein; Zashin & 
Rich Co., L.P.A., and Andrew A. Zashin;  Law Offices of Ellen S. Mandell and 
Ellen S. Mandell, for relator. 
 
Gerald R. Watson & Associates and Gerald R. Watson, for respondent. 
______________________