Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Harris

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Harris, 108 Ohio St.3d 543, 2006-Ohio-1715.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. HARRIS. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Harris, 108 Ohio St.3d 543, 2006-Ohio-1715.] 
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Conduct involving fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or 
misrepresentation—Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice—
Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law—Neglect of an 
entrusted legal matter—Failure to seek lawful objectives of a client—
Failure to carry out contract of employment–Conduct that prejudices or 
damages a client—Charging an excessive fee—Failure to cooperate in 
disciplinary investigation—Failure to notify clients of inadequate 
professional-liability insurance—Indefinite suspension. 
(No. 2005-2029 — Submitted January 11, 2006 — Decided April 19, 2006.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 04-075. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Cynthia June Harris of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0059755, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1992.  She is not 
currently registered to practice law in Ohio. 
{¶ 2} On December 6, 2004, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a 
complaint charging respondent with several counts of professional misconduct.  
When service of the complaint on respondent by certified mail could not be 
completed, the complaint was served on the Clerk of the Supreme Court as 
respondent’s agent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(B).  Respondent did not answer, 
and relator moved for default under Gov.Bar R. V(6)(F).  A master commissioner 
appointed by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline granted 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
the motion, making findings of misconduct and a recommendation, all of which 
the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
Count I 
{¶ 3} Maggie L. Clark paid respondent a $1,000 retainer in 1999 to 
represent her in a domestic-relations proceeding.  Clark was to receive one-half of 
her husband’s pension and 401(k) assets when their marriage was dissolved in 
September of that year.  Respondent prepared the necessary paperwork to secure 
Clark’s interest in the pension, but failed to do the same for the 401(k) assets.  
When Clark inquired about the status of the 401(k) paperwork, respondent 
misrepresented the reasons for the delay in completing that paperwork.  
Respondent’s failure to protect Clark’s one-half interest in the 401(k) assets 
hampered Clark’s ability to purchase a new home and to pay medical and dental 
bills. 
{¶ 4} The board found that respondent had thereby violated the 
following Disciplinary Rules: DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct involving 
fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or misrepresentation), 1-102(A)(5) (barring conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice), 1-102(A)(6) (prohibiting conduct that 
adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law), 6-101(A)(3) (barring an 
attorney from neglecting an entrusted legal matter), 7-101(A)(1) (barring an 
attorney from intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of a client), 7-
101(A)(2) (prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally failing to carry out a contract 
of employment), and 7-101(A)(3) (barring conduct that prejudices or damages a 
client). 
Count II 
{¶ 5} In February 2003, Gerald Parham paid respondent a $2,000 
retainer to represent him in separate child-support and child-custody matters.  
During the representation, respondent failed to return telephone calls from 
January Term, 2006 
3 
Parham and offered various excuses for her failure to file pleadings in court on 
Parham’s behalf.  In August 2003, Parham left a message for respondent, 
terminating the representation and requesting a refund and the return of his case 
file.  Respondent did not reply, but three months later, she did send him a partial 
refund of $860, along with a bill detailing several telephone calls to Parham that 
never occurred. 
{¶ 6} The board found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(6), 2-106(A) (prohibiting an illegal or clearly excessive fee), 
6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3). 
Count III 
{¶ 7} In June 2003, Gary Kuhlen paid respondent a $1,500 retainer to 
represent him in an anticipated divorce case.  After Kuhlen’s wife filed for 
divorce in July 2003, Kuhlen tried to call respondent, but her office telephone had 
been disconnected.  Kuhlen then left several messages for respondent on her 
cellular telephone’s voice mail.  Respondent did return the calls, although not 
until several days later.  Kuhlen asked respondent to seek a restraining order 
immediately to prevent his wife from contacting him.  Respondent later told 
Kuhlen that she had filed a request for the restraining order as he had requested, 
but in fact, she had not done so.  With no restraining order in place, Kuhlen’s wife 
continued to contact him at home and at work. 
{¶ 8} During the representation, respondent failed to keep Kuhlen 
apprised of the status of his case.  Kuhlen learned about an upcoming court 
hearing from his wife rather than through respondent.  In October 2003, Kuhlen 
left a message for respondent terminating the representation and demanding a 
refund and his case file.  Respondent delivered Kuhlen’s case file to his new 
attorney, but did not refund his retainer or provide an accounting of her services. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 9} The board found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5), 1-102(A)(6), 2-106(A), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), and 7-
101(A)(2). 
Count IV 
{¶ 10} Between November 2002 and February 2003, Kimberly Kohler 
paid respondent a $1,500 retainer to represent her in a dissolution and child-
custody matter.  Opposing counsel drafted a shared-parenting plan for 
respondent’s review, and respondent advised Kohler to sign the plan documents.  
When Kohler read the documents at the other lawyer’s office, however, she saw 
several provisions that she had not agreed to.  She tried to call respondent for 
advice, but respondent’s office telephone had been disconnected, and Kohler left 
the attorney’s office without signing the shared-parenting plan. 
{¶ 11} Later, respondent called Kohler and told her that she was leaving 
the practice of law but would contact opposing counsel to discuss Kohler’s 
concerns about the shared-parenting plan.  Respondent never spoke with opposing 
counsel, however, and did not return Kohler’s phone calls about the issue.  
Opposing counsel presented the shared-parenting plan to the trial court without 
Kohler’s signature, and it was adopted by the court upon the attorney’s 
representation that respondent had failed to contact him about the document.  As a 
result, Kohler was forced to retain new counsel and incur additional legal 
expenses in an effort to amend the shared-parenting plan. 
{¶ 12} The board found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(6), 2-106(A), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), 7-101(A)(2), and 7-101(A)(3). 
Count V 
{¶ 13} In November 2001, Catherine Saporito paid respondent a $1,500 
retainer to help Saporito collect more than $35,000 in past-due child-support 
payments.  Saporito gave respondent all of the necessary documentation 
concerning her ex-husband’s child-support obligation, including his name and 
January Term, 2006 
5 
current address.  When Saporito inquired about the case over the next three years, 
respondent said that she had been unable to find the ex-husband. 
{¶ 14} In March 2004, Saporito learned that her ex-husband would be in 
Columbus for the Easter holiday.  She tried to contact respondent several times to 
alert her so that respondent could try to serve the necessary papers on him, but 
respondent did not return her telephone calls.  Saporito later learned that her ex-
husband was relocating to Florida and again tried to tell respondent about his new 
address there.  Respondent did not return the calls and never returned Saporito’s 
retainer or case file despite her requests. 
{¶ 15} The board found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-
102(A)(6), 2-106(A), 6-101(A)(3), 7-101(A)(1), and 7-101(A)(2). 
Count VI 
{¶ 16} Respondent allowed her malpractice insurance to lapse in 2003 and 
failed to advise her clients of that fact in writing or to secure their signed 
acknowledgements concerning her uninsured status. 
{¶ 17} The board found that respondent had thereby violated DR 1-
104(A) (requiring an attorney who does not maintain adequate professional-
liability insurance to so advise his or her clients in writing) and 1-104(B) 
(requiring the lawyer to keep a copy of the written notice signed by each client for 
five years after termination of the representation). 
{¶ 18} The board also found that respondent promised during an August 
2004 deposition to provide additional information to relator about her client trust 
account, yet never provided that information despite repeatedly assuring relator 
that she would do so.  This conduct, according to the board, violated Gov.Bar R. 
V(4)(G) (requiring attorneys to cooperate with and assist in any disciplinary 
investigation). 
Sanction 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 19} In recommending a sanction for this misconduct, the board 
considered the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in Section 10 of the Rules 
and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings Before the 
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  As 
aggravating factors, the board found that respondent was sanctioned by this court 
on January 27, 2003, for failing to comply with continuing-education 
requirements.  See In re Report of Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn., 98 Ohio 
St.3d 1426, 2003-Ohio-318, 782 N.E.2d 583.  We suspended her license to 
practice law on April 8, 2005, when she failed to pay a fine in connection with 
that sanction.  See In re Report of Comm. on Continuing Legal Edn., 105 Ohio 
St.3d 1487, 2005-Ohio-1647, 825 N.E.2d 613.  In addition, the board found that 
respondent’s actions as described in relator’s complaint showed that respondent 
had engaged in a pattern of misconduct, had committed multiple offenses, had 
failed to cooperate in the disciplinary process, had refused to acknowledge the 
wrongful nature of her conduct, had harmed vulnerable clients, and had failed to 
make restitution.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i). 
{¶ 20} The board cited respondent’s depression as a mitigating factor, 
though it noted that she had failed to comply with a mental-health contract with 
the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program that she had signed in April 2004.  BCGD 
Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(g). 
{¶ 21} Relator recommended that respondent’s license to practice law be 
indefinitely suspended.  The master commissioner and the board accepted this 
recommendation. 
{¶ 22} We agree that respondent committed the misconduct described 
above, and we agree that an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction.  As 
we have routinely explained, neglect of legal matters and the failure to cooperate 
in the ensuing disciplinary investigation warrant an indefinite suspension from the 
practice of law.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Treneff, 104 Ohio St.3d 336, 2004-Ohio-
January Term, 2006 
7 
6562, 819 N.E.2d 695, ¶ 16.  The act of accepting retainers or legal fees and 
failing to carry out contracts of employment is tantamount to theft of the fee from 
the client.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moushey, 104 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-Ohio-
6897, 819 N.E.2d 1112, ¶ 16.  Respondent’s misconduct reflects poorly on the 
legal profession and caused harm to the clients whose legal matters she neglected. 
{¶ 23} Accordingly, respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the 
practice of law in Ohio.  We also order respondent to return any unearned fees to 
Maggie Clark, Gerald Parham, Gary Kuhlen, Kimberly Kohler, and Catherine 
Saporito within 30 days.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Susan C. Walker; Sowald, Sowald & Clouse and Heather G. Sowald; and 
Bruce A. Campbell, for relator. 
______________________