Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Rammelsberg

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. Rammelsberg, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2024.] 
 
 
 
 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. 2015-OHIO-2024 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. RAMMELSBERG. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Rammelsberg, Slip Opinion  
No. 2015-Ohio-2024.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
including trust-account violations, knowingly failing to respond to a 
demand for information by a disciplinary authority during an 
investigation, and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, 
or misrepresentation—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2013-0312—Submitted January 14, 2015—Decided May 28, 2015.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2012-093. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Sharri Una Rammelsberg of Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0058478, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1992.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
On December 2, 2005, we suspended Rammelsberg from the practice of law in 
Ohio for her failure to register as an attorney for the 2005 to 2007 biennium.  In re 
Attorney Registration Suspension of Rammelsberg, 107 Ohio St.3d 1431, 2005-
Ohio-6408, 838 N.E.2d 671.  We reinstated her to the practice of law on 
December 29, 2005.  In re Reinstatement of Rammelsberg, 108 Ohio St.3d 1428, 
2006-Ohio-378, 841 N.E.2d 790.  She has been registered as an inactive attorney 
since October 28, 2013. 
{¶ 2} On December 10, 2012, a probable-cause panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline1 certified a complaint submitted by 
relator, disciplinary counsel, to the full board.  The complaint alleged that 
Rammelsberg had overdrawn her client trust account on two separate occasions, 
that she had not fully cooperated in relator’s investigation, and that she had 
knowingly made a false statement during the investigation.  Rammelsberg did not 
answer the complaint and the board certified her default to this court on February 
20, 2013.  We imposed an interim default suspension on March 22, 2013.  
Disciplinary Counsel v. Rammelsberg, 134 Ohio St.3d 1502, 2013-Ohio-1054, 
984 N.E.2d 1097. 
{¶ 3} In September 2013, we issued an order to show cause why 
Rammelsberg’s interim default suspension should not be converted into an 
indefinite suspension.  Rammelsberg objected to the show-cause order, and we 
remanded the case to the board for further proceedings.  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Rammelsberg, 137 Ohio St.3d 1435, 2013-Ohio-5501, 998 N.E.2d 1188. 
{¶ 4} On remand, the parties submitted joint stipulations of fact, 
violations, and aggravating and mitigating factors and agreed that Rammelsberg 
should be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law.  The panel appointed to 
                                                 
1 Effective January 1, 2015, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has been 
renamed the Board of Professional Conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A), 140 Ohio St.3d CII. 
 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
hear the matter found that relator had proven the charged misconduct by clear and 
convincing evidence, with the exception of one violation that relator had agreed to 
dismiss.  The panel recommended that Rammelsberg be indefinitely suspended 
from the practice of law with credit for time served during her interim default 
suspension.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and recommended sanction. 
{¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and 
indefinitely suspend Rammelsberg from the practice of law in Ohio, but we 
decline to give her credit for the time served under her interim default suspension. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 6} The parties stipulated and the board found that relator received two 
notices from Fifth Third Bank stating that Rammelsberg’s client trust account 
contained insufficient funds.  Rammelsberg did not respond to relator’s initial 
letters of inquiry, and when she finally did respond, she falsely stated that she had 
closed one of her two client trust accounts and that money orders she had 
deposited into her client trust account to cover a check had not yet cleared her 
account when the payee attempted to negotiate her check.  The only records she 
produced to relator were a single noncompliant client ledger, a firm journal with 
no entries, and a disbursement sheet on which the purported recipient’s signature 
had been forged. 
{¶ 7} Rammelsberg admitted that she twice failed to appear for 
depositions scheduled by relator and that although she appeared for a third 
scheduled deposition, she failed to produce the documents that relator had 
requested regarding her management of trust assets worth approximately 
$100,000.  She also failed to respond to relator’s notice of intent to file a formal 
disciplinary complaint, failed to answer the complaint, and did not respond to this 
court’s order to show cause why an interim default suspension should not be 
imposed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 8} The parties stipulated and the board found that Rammelsberg’s 
conduct, summarized above, violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(a)(2) (requiring a lawyer 
to maintain a record for each client that sets forth the name of the client; the date, 
amount, and source of all funds received on behalf of the client; the date, amount, 
payee, and purpose of each disbursement made on behalf of the client; and the 
current balance for each client), 1.15(a)(3) (requiring a lawyer to maintain a 
record for the lawyer’s client trust account setting forth the name of the account, 
the date, amount, and client affected by each credit and debit, and the balance in 
the account), 8.1(a) (prohibiting knowingly making a false statement of material 
fact in connection with a disciplinary matter), 8.1(b) (prohibiting a lawyer from 
knowingly failing to respond to a demand for information by a disciplinary 
authority during an investigation), 8.4(c) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) (now Gov.Bar R. V(9)(G)) (requiring a lawyer to cooperate with a 
disciplinary investigation).  The parties and board recommend that we dismiss an 
alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law) that relator 
agreed to dismiss. 
{¶ 9} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and hereby 
dismiss the alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 
Sanction 
{¶ 10} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 
relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated 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.  In making a final 
determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B).  Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 
St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21.2 
{¶ 11} The board adopted the parties’ stipulated factors in aggravation, 
including Rammelsberg’s prior attorney-registration suspension, her multiple 
offenses, and her failure to cooperate in relator’s investigation or the disciplinary 
process.  See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (d), and (e).  In mitigation, the board 
found that Rammelsberg submitted four letters, including one from her mother 
and one from her aunt, attesting to her character and reputation.  Rammelsberg’s 
husband passed away in August 2012, and in May 2014, Rammelsberg entered 
into a two-year contract with the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program (“OLAP”).  
Although the panel held the record open for three weeks so that she could submit 
additional medical reports or treatment plans, she did not provide additional 
documentation, and the board did not find her mental-health issues to be a 
mitigating factor. 
{¶ 12} The parties stipulated that the appropriate sanction for 
Rammelsberg’s misconduct is an indefinite suspension and that her reinstatement 
should be conditioned on (1) her full and complete cooperation with relator and 
her providing the documents and information requested in relator’s May 16, 2012 
letter to her, (2) her compliance with all treatment recommendations made by 
OLAP, and (3) her compliance with all treatment recommendations of her current 
therapist or other mental-health professional. 
{¶ 13} The parties did not provide legal precedent for their proposed 
sanction, and the board noted that, standing alone, the trust-account violations 
would most likely result in the imposition of a stayed term suspension.  But 
noting that Rammelsberg knowingly failed to cooperate in the disciplinary 
                                                 
2 Effective January 1, 2015, the aggravating and mitigating factors previously set forth in BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1) and (2) are codified in Gov.Bar R. V(13), 140 Ohio St.3d CXXIV. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
investigation, failed to respond to relator’s demands for information, and made 
false statements to relator during the investigation, the board found that she had 
shown a pattern of disregard for the disciplinary process that required a more 
severe sanction. 
{¶ 14} The board noted that this court has imposed indefinite suspensions 
on attorneys who have failed to cooperate in disciplinary investigations.  E.g., 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Alsfelder, 138 Ohio St.3d 333, 2014-Ohio-870, 6 N.E.3d 
1162; Disciplinary Counsel v. Bogdanski, 135 Ohio St.3d 235, 2013-Ohio-398, 
985 N.E.2d 1251; Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Lemieux, 139 Ohio St.3d 320, 
2014-Ohio-2127, 11 N.E.3d 1157; Disciplinary Counsel v. Weiss, 133 Ohio St.3d 
236, 2012-Ohio-4564, 977 N.E.2d 636; and Disciplinary Counsel v. Scacchetti, 
131 Ohio St.3d 165, 2012-Ohio-223, 962 N.E.2d 786. 
{¶ 15} The board also noted that we have indefinitely suspended attorneys 
who engaged in misconduct comparable to Rammelsberg’s misconduct.  E.g., 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Wrentmore, 138 Ohio St.3d 16, 2013-Ohio-5041, 3 
N.E.2d 149 (imposing an indefinite suspension on an attorney who deposited 
court-cost refunds into his personal account and kept a portion of the cash, 
knowingly made a false statement of material fact in connection with a 
disciplinary matter, and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation); Columbus Bar Assn. v. Peden, 134 Ohio St.3d 579, 2012-
Ohio-5766, 984 N.E.2d 1 (indefinitely suspending an attorney who overdrew his 
client trust account, deposited client funds into his operating account, neglected 
several client matters, failed to advise his clients that he did not carry professional 
liability insurance, and failed to cooperate in the resulting disciplinary 
investigation). 
{¶ 16} Therefore, the board adopted the parties’ stipulated sanction of an 
indefinite suspension, with reinstatement conditioned on her full cooperation with 
relator’s request for production of documents and compliance with the treatment 
January Term, 2015 
 
7
recommendations of OLAP and her treating mental-health professionals.  But the 
board also recommends that we credit Rammelsberg for the time served under her 
March 22, 2013 interim default suspension. 
{¶ 17} We agree that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction 
for Rammelsberg’s misconduct; however, we decline to grant her credit for the 
time served under her interim default suspension. 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, we indefinitely suspend Sharri Una Rammelsberg 
from the practice of law in Ohio and condition her reinstatement on her 
compliance with relator’s requests for the production of documents and 
information and her full compliance with any treatment recommendations made 
by OLAP, her therapist, or any other mental-health professionals.  Costs are taxed 
to Rammelsberg. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen H. Osmond, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
William B. Strubbe, for respondent. 
_________________________